Getting rid of Endurance

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

While I agree that, in the source material, "tired" is a plot element, so is "hit" vs "missed", "mind controlled" vs "heroically resisted", and whether or not the characters are stunned, knocked out (and for how long), wounded, impaired, dying or dead. The author makes all of these decisions.

hit and missed,m hurt and not, happen a lot in typical combats in the source, and also happen frequently in the game so those are in sync. game matches genre.

 

mind control or not, dead or not etc happen more infrequently in combats in the genre and are likewise not overrepresented in the game in general. You don't have to "check for dying" with every hit in the game, just for those serious ones. I think we might all agree that if a four color comics game had "save vs dead" for every successful hit, that mechanic wouldn't match genre too well and puts too high an emphasis on that result which is rare in the source.

 

Tired as a plot device is also IMO and IMX in comics and heroic fiction not in the former camp (this that happen in most action scenes) but rather in the second camp (things that happen more rarely and are when they occur the key focus of the scene.)

 

Yet, hero treats END use just like hit and miss and stun loss in terms of the amount of tracking required. Body loss (depending on genre) may or may not be an issue at all, as befits the genre... supers lose little but have to worry about stun quite a bit.

 

This is IMo where the disconnect lies.

 

Imagine if hero had you also track willpower, an expendable stat like stun for mental effects, based on the notion that being beaten up makes you more vulnberable to mind control and so players were required to adjust willpower up and down as they get hit and take recoveries even though mental powers themselves were rarely used. Say 9 combats in 10 no mental powers are used BUT for all combats they have to track the stat.

 

not too good a fit.

 

thats pretty much how i see HERO end tracking, except that IMo the game system tends to make END too big an issue, not leaving it to the 1 time in 10 level but tends to make it a case often.

 

In the game, we have objective standards for determining these results because we don't have a single author making the decision. Choosing to remove "tired" from the objectively determined states of being is a decision one can make, but I don't see the END system as any different from rolling to hit, measuring the attack's strength against your defenses and determining the damage inflicted, and its effects.

 

Again, the difference to me is that in the comics, hit missed hurt stunned occur a lot, so i have no issue with it veing tracvked mechanically a lot.

 

getting tired on the other hand is one of those rare plot device elements which IMo only deserves tracking effort when its time for that plot device to appear.

 

I wont make my players make PER rolls every scene to try and spot invisible characters unless there are invisible chanracters tyhere to be spotted. Thats a waste of their time and mine. So why make them track end costs over and over if its not going to matter often?

 

Why not just wait until fatigue is a plot element to bring down the pain, as some might say, of endurance tracking? Why not only spend time on what matters when it matters for those things which happen so rarely?

 

If your characters tire too easily, maybe you're not spending enough points on END, REC and/or reduced END, or otherwise have built your character out of genre (too many full END costing actions in a turn, perhaps).

 

Well, enough of the sample characters show endurance issues as being common enough and show issues with more than say 20 seconds of combat that I find it difficult to just dismiss this as "bad players messing up with a perfect system".

 

Its easy to simply pass every issue off as PEBCACS (problem exists between chair and character sheet) to be of use and its gets harder to do that with a straight face when there are sufficent numbers of examp0le characters with similar designs.

 

but you know, the primary result of "you built it wrong" answers and "tell them to suck it up" answers to questions like this will likely be in the long term more "how do we convince more people to play HERO?" threads, so what the hey! MAYBE PEBCACS leads to NOEBCACS (No one exists between chair and character sheet.) :-)

 

Maybe this notion would mesh well with HERo-5 catch all escape clause "use common sense, dramatic sense, and sense of balance."

[zornwil]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Tesuji, though, I would say it's also reasonably easy to create chars so that you ensure END is not an issue except where you want it to be. A PC for whom the story is getting tired would not have enough END or 0-END powers compared to other characters and would experience this, although probably with bigger attacks.

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

zornwil...

 

PEBCACS... got it.

 

HERo right... players wrong...

 

lesson learned.

 

moving on.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Tired as a plot device is also IMO and IMX in comics and heroic fiction not in the former camp (this that happen in most action scenes) but rather in the second camp (things that happen more rarely and are when they occur the key focus of the scene.)

 

Yet, hero treats END use just like hit and miss and stun loss in terms of the amount of tracking required. Body loss (depending on genre) may or may not be an issue at all, as befits the genre... supers lose little but have to worry about stun quite a bit.

**********************************************************

thats pretty much how i see HERO end tracking, except that IMo the game system tends to make END too big an issue, not leaving it to the 1 time in 10 level but tends to make it a case often.

 

I'm inclined to agree that the base system makes END an issue more often than it arises in the source material. However, it is fairly easy to make it arise much less often, simply by using the tools in the toolbox. Buy Reduced END. Buy more REC (more END helps less since it still erodes sostill needs to be tracked).

 

Establish as a campaign ground rule that characters MUST be designed such that thier END use per turn, assuming a half move and attack, plus maintaining standard Constant powers, can be no more than 80% of the character's REC. REC for END only may be purchased at a discounted value in this regard. Now we add the following house rules:

 

- END is only tracked when the GM says so - it will rarely matter to the scene, so rarely needs to be tracked (If I know Mark the Mage has an END drain, now I'll make you track it)

 

- characters awakening from KO have END = STUN and must now track their END (or dismiss this as a handwave, if you prefer)

 

- characters taking special actions that cost extra END have ,made exhaustion part of the scene, and must now track their END. That would include pushing, for example, or a rarely used power that costs considerable END.

 

- with GM permission, a character may be exempt from the END use < 80% REC rule. Such characters have made "getting tired" part of their schtick and will be require to track END in all scenes.

 

All this really does is move "characters who tire quickly in combat" out of the standard in favour of "characters who fight all day without breaking a sweat".

 

Well' date=' enough of the sample characters show endurance issues as being common enough and show issues with more than say 20 seconds of combat that I find it difficult to just dismiss this as "bad players messing up with a perfect system". [/quote']

 

Most sample characters will need a redesign to fit these new campaign groundrules. That happens a lot when we depart from the norm for the game system.

[zornwil]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

zornwil...

 

PEBCACS... got it.

 

HERo right... players wrong...

 

lesson learned.

 

moving on.

First, I'm pointing out an alternative that will have the desired effect.

 

Second, if you think that using the system to make it a non-issue for all but those players who want to have losing energy as part of their story is somehow a burden I think that's a bit much.

 

That being said, I would find it simplest to just not use END for campaigns where it isn't important.

[Vondy]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Well, to be frank about it, if there is something in a game i run that my players don't like doing, I don't make them do it. I espcailly don't make them do it most of the time in every action scene. The game is supposed ton be fun, not work, and if tracking end is work for them, i remove that issue.

 

Also, i rarely see end as a useful mechanic for matching up to the genres i run. Simply put, in most suprrheo adventures and most hero9ic adventures, "tired" is more flavor than meat, and the only time the hero has problems, actual problems, with fatigue is when its a crucial plot element, the actual nemesis in the drama, like when sipdey is up against an indeaftigable relentless robot hunter. 99% of the time, "tired" wont play a role, so why make your game run so that 99% of the time the players have to spend time working at tracking how tired they are?

 

"cuz the game system says so" is an interesting answer, but i put players and fun first.

 

My first take would be to just drop end. I have done so in heroic level games before without a hitch and ran at least three superhero games where end was not tracked (it was assumed normal stuff wasn't tiring and only extra effort caused problems.)

 

Of course, dropping end means you will have to cover for things like holding breath (make it a series of con checks?) and pushing (make it cause activation rolls for future exertions or penalties or maybe just lower DCs by a notch afterward due to fatigue) and so forth but thoseare easy enough.

 

If certain powers/abilities get out of whack (I am curious as to what those were BTW) then apply a cost increase to those to reflect the improvement.

 

Three simple solutions:

 

1) Drop endurance - the system itself gives this as an option.

2) Design characters who are "endurence efficient" *

3) Only charge endurance for pushing or dramatic long-term usage.

 

*Building them with 0 End; working their expenditure for "normal" power usage to zero out after Post-12 recovery; other clever idea.

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Second, if you think that using the system to make it a non-issue for all but those players who want to have losing energy as part of their story is somehow a burden I think that's a bit much.

 

Got that.

 

Sldo got hugh's long list of addeed chargen rules the players ought to track to create similar effects.

 

there are -probably a lot more ways i can pass this off as a problem for my players or of my players and make them work around it... but why would i want to do any of those?

 

the point which may be getting missed, likely my poor communication skills, ties in with both these and the "tell them to suck it up attitude" which is simply put... I dion't prefer blaming the player and making the player do more work to solve the system mismatch to the genre.

 

Why should "hey you, player, DO MORE WORK" or put another way "make the player work for the system" be a better answer than "HEY GM use a system that works for us!"?

 

As GM, my first goal is to make this enjoyable for the players and IMX complicating chargen isn't a good way to do that.

 

So, to me, i would much rather FIX IT AT SYSTEM LEVEL (whether that be changing the HERO system or just choosing a system that matches the genre better in the first place) than pass the 3orkload for "works like the genre" to the players in terms of added requirements and complications and figuring out 80% blah blah in chargen to them.

 

So, you know, the net result is... I don't view Hugh's long list of additional chargen figurings passed on to the players or the more egenral "use more 0 end powers" requirements pass on to the players as an approach I would be likely to take or be even considering more than a second or two. i would change the system... likely just dropping end... or choose a different system altogether. I tweak, bend, fold, spindle and otherwise mutilate every system i run to fit my game and my players, so thats no big deal to me. I just don't see any sense in foricing more work on them when i can solve the issue systematically.

 

i guess I am odd man out sometimes in that regard.

[zornwil]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Got that.

 

Sldo got hugh's long list of addeed chargen rules the players ought to track to create similar effects.

 

there are -probably a lot more ways i can pass this off as a problem for my players or of my players and make them work around it... but why would i want to do any of those?

 

the point which may be getting missed, likely my poor communication skills, ties in with both these and the "tell them to suck it up attitude" which is simply put... I dion't prefer blaming the player and making the player do more work to solve the system mismatch to the genre.

 

Why should "hey you, player, DO MORE WORK" or put another way "make the player work for the system" be a better answer than "HEY GM use a system that works for us!"?

 

As GM, my first goal is to make this enjoyable for the players and IMX complicating chargen isn't a good way to do that.

 

So, to me, i would much rather FIX IT AT SYSTEM LEVEL (whether that be changing the HERO system or just choosing a system that matches the genre better in the first place) than pass the 3orkload for "works like the genre" to the players in terms of added requirements and complications and figuring out 80% blah blah in chargen to them.

 

So, you know, the net result is... I don't view Hugh's long list of additional chargen figurings passed on to the players or the more egenral "use more 0 end powers" requirements pass on to the players as an approach I would be likely to take or be even considering more than a second or two. i would change the system... likely just dropping end... or choose a different system altogether. I tweak, bend, fold, spindle and otherwise mutilate every system i run to fit my game and my players, so thats no big deal to me. I just don't see any sense in foricing more work on them when i can solve the issue systematically.

 

i guess I am odd man out sometimes in that regard.

Like I and VDM said, the system itself says "throw END out" if you want.

 

My only point is that I don't find it to be much more than trivial to design some characters to ignore END and others not to IF SOME players WANT some of their characters to have to deal with END. In that case, you (the GM) only have to assure that the PCs who shouldn't deal with END get designed appropriately. And it's not as if it has to be precise (I would certainly ignore whether a few situations might cause the odd character to be a couple END over or whether being reduced to 0 or less STUN reduces the END for those characters who "paid" for not worrying about END).

 

But as stated, I'm not saying this is why you shouldn't just jettison END. I just see it as an alternative which gives variability if you so want it within a campaign.

 

PS - I don't see either solution as less systemic in approach, just a matter of how you choose to employ the system, and mention the latter approach not because it passes the problem onto the players, in fact it should do quite the reverse, enabling those players who are so interested while ignoring it for those who are not

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Sldo got hugh's long list of addeed chargen rules the players ought to track to create similar effects.

 

there are -probably a lot more ways i can pass this off as a problem for my players or of my players and make them work around it... but why would i want to do any of those?

 

the point which may be getting missed, likely my poor communication skills, ties in with both these and the "tell them to suck it up attitude" which is simply put... I dion't prefer blaming the player and making the player do more work to solve the system mismatch to the genre.

 

Why should "hey you, player, DO MORE WORK" or put another way "make the player work for the system" be a better answer than "HEY GM use a system that works for us!"?

 

While there are some issues at chargen for players who want characters that ignore END, there are also issues if we just turf the END system. As you note,

 

Of course' date=' dropping end means you will have to cover for things like holding breath (make it a series of con checks?) and pushing (make it cause activation rolls for future exertions or penalties or maybe just lower DCs by a notch afterward due to fatigue) and so forth but thoseare easy enough.[/quote']

 

Can a character buy an ability that makes him better able to push (just like he can buy added dice with an END multiple now, plus buy more END)? The "how" will, of course, depend on the system you choose. Holding your breath is already covered under life support, but will need to be meshed with your revised rules.

 

You also mention bringing fatigue in when it is dramatically appropriate. Will that just be GM fiat, or does it need some rules system to ensure that characters who should logicallly be less prone to fatigue are, in fact, less prone to fatigure? Can characters buy down their susceptibility to fatigue for those rare times it will be an issue in your games? What's the cost? How much granularity will there be? Probably a variant of Life Support - but again we're adding new abilities.

 

Then there's that balance issue. Powers that don't cost END by default should logically have their costs lowered if no power costs END. Compare a force field to Armor and nonresistant PD and ED - do the costs make sense if we remove END? Gliding and Flight become unbalanced compared to one another.

 

Aid is another that costs no END - may as well take Succor instead since neither will now cost END. Suppress is much more potent, as I can have many stacked Suppress attacks at a time without the multiple END this creates. Longlasting mental powers are enhanced, since I need not pay END to prevent breakout rolls becoming easier. Of course, I can always remove these options from the game, but I'm reluctant to take away features of the game system.

 

What about powers that cost no END in general, but are tiring to certain characters (that green ring bubble for Life Support, for example, or skill levels/extra DEX which exact a toll on the user). Costs END is gone, so now we need a new construct. Whereas if we simply used "0 END" as a default advantage on powers that normally cost END, the option remains for those players wishing to use it (and not seeing the added complexity as a big deal).

 

Do we need to reprice CON, since it now gives less in the way of figured characteristics? Maybe the cost of REC, which only recovers STUN, not END, now, should also be reduced?

 

Do we need some new restriction to place on powers in an elemental control, since "must cost END" is irrelevant in a game that doesn't use END? If so, what should that restriction be? Maybe we just get rid of EC's to avoid this issue.

 

How much do all these new rules complicate character generation? How confusing are they for veteran Hero gamers? Options? Well, design to avoid running out of END, of course. That could be complex (my 80% of REC approach, for example), but could be as simple as a house rule that powers that normally cost END to use must take the +1/2 "0 END" advantage. Everything still seems to fit. We don't have to track END. Have we excessively depowered the characters? Maybe so - we can always add some base points to offset that.

 

And this leaves the option of a character who does use END, if the GM wishes to allow it and the player wishes to play it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

For Supers (and other like styled campaigns) I've changed END as follows.

 

END must be purchased up to the number of APs in power that character can use. Example: You want a 10d6 EB... you have to have at least 50 END.

 

All use of powers/actions that fall at or under the END level bought are "free" in terms of END use. So no tracking what is essentially "regular level activity" as part of the game.

 

END is still a regulatory stat, but no tracking is involved.

 

BUT... END is important for pushing. Push rules allow any power to be pushed (with a successful Ego roll) up to 1/2 the AP of the power at 1 AP for 1 END. Example: That 10d6 EB can be pushed to 15d6 for 25 END.

 

END now becomes a "Cool Stat" where it becomes a pool of extra power when needed.

 

BUT... once your END is used and drops below it's normal max. Now powers can't be used above the new level (say 50 dropped to 25) until the END is recovered back up. So spending that big push creates following actions like, "SPUTTER, Zrrk! Damn! That was weak. I couldn't hurt a fly right now. Gimme a few seconds so I can get back up to strength!"

 

Any use of powers at full when END is not is just like a push... requires END and is 1 for 1 in spending. Often knocking a character out. (Being reduced to 0 or negative stun still reduces END the same... so recovering back up to max is doubly important after you've been unconscious.)

 

It works really well for us. Our standard attack is probably 60-70 AP... so minimum that level of END. (Martial artists have to add in all DC to STR, etc. to figure out their END need.) Then supers run around doing super stuff with regularity... but in really tough situations... they have to strain themselves a bit which adds drama if they want the big hit.

 

The results of modifying old characters to fit this was great. Martial artists and mini-brick types came out a little more expensive (say 15 points more on a 350 point build) and all other characters tended to save points, since they no longer needed to buy all the "Reduced END" on powers. This further balanced the hyper-efficient martial artist/mini-brick type with other characters, when they have always been the most effective character builds.

 

Again... works really well for us, with only slight modifications to character builds. END becomes a stat that is regulatory in the background, but allows for cool stuff on the player side and is a great "one look" evaluator for a GM. Look at the END stat. 75 END? Ok... we know this character is a 15d6 type of guy.

 

The only downstream effect I've had to do is toss out Force Field as a separate power. (Way too effective at auto zero END.) If you want a FF, just buy Armor and slap -1/4 non-persistent and call it a FF.

 

 

In the end, this one change solidified a lot of design I've wanted to see in Hero. Instead of the default, basic character being a END suck who has to be tracked for every thing he does... the default is an easy to run, no-tracking character. BUT, if a player wants to track END as an important part of concept. Take "Costs END" on the power... get a few points back, and track END as normal, recognizing that it is lowering his overall effectiveness quite a bit.

 

END becomes a big picture, strategic Story element (similar to what tesuji was writing about) rather than a brain numbing exercise in book keeping.

[psychoticbarber]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

As much as I've not enjoyed tracking END in my own games, you have to ask yourself a question as a player: Is Hero the right system for me? It's not, for some people. Most people I introduce to the system are experienced roleplayers who are a little surprised by all these "extra" stats to track, but not even all of them. For some inexperienced roleplayers, the idea can be a little daunting. I do think, though, that people who are interested in the much more immersive world of Heroes should be prepared to track END. If you want a character who can fight all day without worrying, go play D&D: I do. There's no shame in it. I have come to a point where I realize that in order to take people to Heroes, you usually have to do something else first. You have to talk to them, or invite them along, or something. It's really, really hard to jump right into Heroes without any other experience. Okay, I'm a little off topic here, but my opinion stands: Work your way up to Heroes, and then track your END because your Heroes Character is no cookie-cutter D&D mongrel (I mean that in the most loving way possible), your Heroes character is a real person, with real (if somewhat extended) limits that need to be respected.

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

 

While there are some issues at chargen for players who want characters that ignore END, there are also issues if we just turf the END system. As you note,

absolutely... but these aren't usually chargen complexity for players issues, but rather system issues for the GM. Again, as GM, I am happy to do work to make the system work for my gang.

Can a character buy an ability that makes him better able to push (just like he can buy added dice with an END multiple now, plus buy more END)? The "how" will, of course, depend on the system you choose. Holding your breath is already covered under life support, but will need to be meshed with your revised rules.

off the top of my head, pushing ould be run with ego rolls and so buying up your ego rol,s would help with pushing.

You also mention bringing fatigue in when it is dramatically appropriate. Will that just be GM fiat, or does it need some rules system to ensure that characters who should logicallly be less prone to fatigue are, in fact, less prone to fatigure? Can characters buy down their susceptibility to fatigue for those rare times it will be an issue in your games? What's the cost? How much granularity will there be? Probably a variant of Life Support - but again we're adding new abilities.

Replacing "buy more end to be less prone to fatigue" and the calculations involved in "how much end do i use at this level of activity and so forth" is not less complicated than buying "life support- immune to fatigue" along the same lines as say holding breath is for the player. For the GM, it is more up front work so the players don't have to.

 

However, you may be absolutely right, and maybe finding a system which doesn't start with the out-of-genre end cost thingy would be easier than altering HERO to fit such. A system built from the ground up for "only fatigue when extra effort of fatigue powers apply" might better reflect the genre with less work.

Then there's that balance issue. Powers that don't cost END by default should logically have their costs lowered if no power costs END. Compare a force field to Armor and nonresistant PD and ED - do the costs make sense if we remove END? Gliding and Flight become unbalanced compared to one another.

Actually i would disagree significantly with both those assessments.

 

force field can be likened to non-persistent and VISIBLE armor... i wouldn't see this as aseriously out of whack if those were the only differences and the powers costed as they are now.

 

Gliding with its reduced ability to climb (and slow climb) etc has never been seen as a problem cost wise in game i have run with or without endurance. its easy in scenes to see the advantages of flight over gliding.

 

the degree to which one worries about changing cost of powers and "impact on balance" varies directly with the amount of import you place on "balance comes from points" vs "balance comes from challenge" and i fall heavily into the latter camp, not the former.

 

but hey, there are many who feel the balance in hero comes from the points and who would likely see all sorts of boogeymen lurking around any significant system, changes... they just seem to be a little out of sort with the overall toolkit change what you want HERO design, IMO.

Aid is another that costs no END - may as well take Succor instead since neither will now cost END. Suppress is much more potent, as I can have many stacked Suppress attacks at a time without the multiple END this creates. Longlasting mental powers are enhanced, since I need not pay END to prevent breakout rolls becoming easier. Of course, I can always remove these options from the game, but I'm reluctant to take away features of the game system.

boogeymen. i have never seen a player buy reduced end or pay extra end so his mind control doesn't start degrading... something about so much effort for minor shift when multiple rolls will get them out instead. Nor when i have done that for NPCs has it made any serious balance issues.

 

Difference between aid and succor is persistance.

stacking multiple suppress doesn't become BALANCED because it costs end. the problem is and remains the free cumulative that got shoehorned in.

 

gosh tho, a whoe lot of boogeymen for a notion mentioned in the rulebook.

 

probably better for all us simpletons to just use HERO as written as god ordained.

 

or, maybe just take our business elsewhere to systems we may be competent to use and change to fit our needs.

 

gosh darn. we simples probably should try this game at all.

 

leave it to you experts, huh?

 

What about powers that cost no END in general, but are tiring to certain characters (that green ring bubble for Life Support, for example, or skill levels/extra DEX which exact a toll on the user). Costs END is gone, so now we need a new construct. Whereas if we simply used "0 END" as a default advantage on powers that normally cost END, the option remains for those players wishing to use it (and not seeing the added complexity as a big deal).

me simple, you smart...

got it.

 

HERO too hard. not change... got it.

Do we need to reprice CON, since it now gives less in the way of figured characteristics? Maybe the cost of REC, which only recovers STUN, not END, now, should also be reduced?

we pakled... you make us go?

 

Do we need some new restriction to place on powers in an elemental control, since "must cost END" is irrelevant in a game that doesn't use END? If so, what should that restriction be? Maybe we just get rid of EC's to avoid this issue.

brainnns... brainnnsssss

 

How much do all these new rules complicate character generation? How confusing are they for veteran Hero gamers? Options? Well, design to avoid running out of END, of course. That could be complex (my 80% of REC approach, for example), but could be as simple as a house rule that powers that normally cost END to use must take the +1/2 "0 END" advantage. Everything still seems to fit. We don't have to track END. Have we excessively depowered the characters? Maybe so - we can always add some base points to offset that.

 

And this leaves the option of a character who does use END, if the GM wishes to allow it and the player wishes to play it.

 

wow... you got me... those three campaigns i ran without using end must have been totaly disasters...gee... how could i have missed that?

 

gotta say tho, you do make the more convincing the notion of simply choosing a system better reflecting end from the get go rather than braving the unfathomable morass which is changing hero endurance.

 

I onyl wish and pray that in hero six the statements about dropping endurance include several pages of warnings such as these you give so no silly GM will be enticed into trying such game destroying universe wrecking silliness in the future.

 

maybe they can even add "dropping endurance will result in killing all puppies in Amarillo texas." just to be safe.

 

:-)

 

Pondering, trying to recollect whether we had such doom and gloom notions when the holy written perfect game went from end cost being AP/5 to the current Ap/10 back in the HERO3-HERO4 transition?

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

END becomes a big picture, strategic Story element (similar to what tesuji was writing about) rather than a brain numbing exercise in book keeping.

 

I actually like that approach a lot. END becomes a capping value and a sort of "hero points" extra reserve. while losing the continuous tracking.

 

nicely done. a good rethink of the mechanic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

off the top of my head' date=' pushing ould be run with ego rolls and so buying up your ego rol,s would help with pushing.[/quote']

 

Pushing is already governed in part by Ego. Do we want Mentalists to have the ability to top up their attacks more or less at will, or should there be some other limiting factor for pushing? While I'm of the school that doesn't go with "casual push" (ie there must be a real REASON to push), which does restrict it somewhat, the idea that a high Ego character can just Push his force field and EB to deal with a major problem (say, Dr. Destroyer) doesn't sit quite right.

 

the degree to which one worries about changing cost of powers and "impact on balance" varies directly with the amount of import you place on "balance comes from points" vs "balance comes from challenge" and i fall heavily into the latter camp' date=' not the former.[/quote']

 

We've danced that dance before. If the points don't matter, ditch the points.

 

I have never seen a player buy reduced end or pay extra end so his mind control doesn't start degrading... something about so much effort for minor shift when multiple rolls will get them out instead. Nor when i have done that for NPCs has it made any serious balance issues.

 

There's a big difference between paying extra END to achieve this result or paying points to get the result with 0 END (and I believe the FAQ requires 0 END for maintaining be purchased separate from 0 END for the initial attack) and getting the ability for free. If there's no cost to maintaining my Mind Control, why would I not maintain it?

 

Difference between aid and succor is persistance.

stacking multiple suppress doesn't become BALANCED because it costs end. the problem is and remains the free cumulative that got shoehorned in.

 

It becomes even less balanced if it costs no END. As does Suppress. Now Aid vs Succor can probably go away for free, given that a game where we're not using END logically shouldn't have a variant power that costs END, but now doesn't cost END.

 

gosh tho' date=' a whoe lot of boogeymen for a notion mentioned in the rulebook.[/quote']

 

Succor and doubling equipment for 5 points are also mentioned in the rulebook, both as more than a notion. These have also demonstrated issues. Did the reference change between editions? It used to suggest elimination of END and limitations.

 

probably better for all us simpletons to just use HERO as written as god ordained.

 

or, maybe just take our business elsewhere to systems we may be competent to use and change to fit our needs.

 

gosh darn. we simples probably should try this game at all.

 

leave it to you experts, huh?

 

 

me simple, you smart...

got it.

 

HERO too hard. not change... got it.

 

we pakled... you make us go?

 

 

brainnns... brainnnsssss

 

Coherent logical points like these will surely sway those who disagree with you. How can I resist them?

 

wow... you got me... those three campaigns i ran without using end must have been totaly disasters...gee... how could i have missed that?

 

Well, you've already told us you have no need for points to balance the game, so giving everyone the bonus points to buy 0 END should cause you no issues whatsoever.

 

Pondering' date=' trying to recollect whether we had such doom and gloom notions when the holy written perfect game went from end cost being AP/5 to the current Ap/10 back in the HERO3-HERO4 transition?[/quote']

 

I've seen the light - you're 100% correct. Let's make it even easier and fold STUN and BOD into a single stat - we can call it health points (HP for short). And let's fold "getting hit" and "getting hurt" into a single stat - we'll call it Avoidance Capability (AC for short). That should make it much easier for players from other systems to move over to Hero.

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

 

As much as I've not enjoyed tracking END in my own games, you have to ask yourself a question as a player: Is Hero the right system for me? It's not, for some people.

also, of course, it needs to be asked as a GM... is it the right system for the game i plan on running and my players.

 

and yes choosing the system right in the first place might be preferrable to fixing the other.

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

 

We've danced that dance before. If the points don't matter, ditch the points.

and as before, I dont say points dont matter. i say points dont create balance or provide balance. Similarly, changing point costs or changing traits without changing their costs does not necessarily create imbalance either.

 

If there's no cost to maintaining my Mind Control, why would I not maintain it?

can you really not think of reasons why?

 

maybe like line of effect issues?

Maybe like multipower slot issues?

Maybe like unconscious issues or stunned issues?

 

but again, the point isn't "why not maintain it" but rather "so what if they do maintain it?" Its just not a big enough deal to get worked up over, IMX.

It becomes even less balanced if it costs no END.

is this kind of like increasing the nukes you have from able to destroy the world 6 time to 7 times?

 

Coherent logical points like these will surely sway those who disagree with you. How can I resist them?

hard to imagine.

 

Well, you've already told us you have no need for points to balance the game, so giving everyone the bonus points to buy 0 END should cause you no issues whatsoever.

did not say that. thats your creative spin on what was actually said.

 

but in the right context, I might agree. Points are certinly not strictly needed for game balance and certainly wont produce game balance in and of themselves. They can however be a part of the game balance process.

 

now, complexly figured points to the nth degree of detail... IMo that level of effort doesn't do much more for balance than more basic simple ones.

I've seen the light - you're 100% correct. Let's make it even easier and fold STUN and BOD into a single stat - we can call it health points (HP for short). And let's fold "getting hit" and "getting hurt" into a single stat - we'll call it Avoidance Capability (AC for short). That should make it much easier for players from other systems to move over to Hero.

 

Again back to my point about chosing system...

 

if i were going to make all those changes, I would instead likely just stick with another system which was built with those. No real gain from reinventing the wheel when you have the wheel.

 

Although, I generally do not prefer HP systems, whether they are DND-ish and have one set of hit points to track, or like Spycraft and have two sets of hit points to track. I am much more fond of damage save setups.

 

As always tho, thanks for pointing out how good and verstile and malleable a toolkit HERO is... it being so customizable and all. I mean, i wouldn't want anyone to think "the ultimate gamer's toolkit" was prone to breakage when changes occur or anything like that.

 

All kidding aside, I personally think HERo is very flexible and durable as a toolkit and think its even more robust and resilient than many adherents seem to think. i always get amazed at how fragile and delicate others seem to think it is given suggestions of change.

 

go figure.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

can you really not think of reasons why?

 

maybe like line of effect issues?

Maybe like multipower slot issues?

Maybe like unconscious issues or stunned issues?

 

but again, the point isn't "why not maintain it" but rather "so what if they do maintain it?" Its just not a big enough deal to get worked up over, IMX.

 

All of the points you raise are reasons it cannot be maintained in either context. If you've got a good effect roll on a desirable target, why let the breakout chance improve, given you have the ability to maintain it?

 

is this kind of like increasing the nukes you have from able to destroy the world 6 time to 7 times?

 

Clearly your experience with Succor and Suppress has been very different from my own, as I don't see them as all that potent. Provided they aren't able to be used repeatedly at no END cost to stack up, of course, as the END cost provides that balance.

 

Did you see these as nukes in games where you were using END, or only in games where you eliminated END?

 

Again back to my point about chosing system...

 

if i were going to make all those changes, I would instead likely just stick with another system which was built with those. No real gain from reinventing the wheel when you have the wheel.

 

Very true - if you're happy with Game System X, whatever it may be, why change?

 

Although' date=' I generally do not prefer HP systems, whether they are DND-ish and have one set of hit points to track, or like Spycraft and have two sets of hit points to track. I am much more fond of damage save setups. [/quote']

 

Other than Mutants & Masterminds (which I found elegant in principal - no experience to say in practice, although I have some concerns), I can't recall seeing any damage save games. Ultimately, Hero is a "two sets of hit points game", isn't it?

 

All kidding aside' date=' I personally think HERo is very flexible and durable as a toolkit and think its even more robust and resilient than many adherents seem to think. i always get amazed at how fragile and delicate others seem to think it is given suggestions of change.[/quote']

 

I'm not a big fan of change for the sake of change. I do believe that the minimum amount of change should be used, since it minimizes the ripple effect, and that change often causes unanticipated results.

 

Mind you, I'm also lazy. If a given game's house rules are so extensive I'm basically learning another rules system, I question whether the time investment is worthwhile.

 

I'm cusious what evolution in character design you've seen from using END to ignoring it, however. Maybe you simply have good players who aren't expoiting any new holes this approach creates (my players have never exploited the Stun lottery, so it never seems a big deal to me). Maybe, however, there have been some developments in the way characters are designed stemming from dropping END.

 

It does, however, bear noting that threads that start "I made this change, and now I'm having this problem" are pretty common. Varying the system without considering the fallout causes a lot of those threads.

[Mr_Yuck]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Those little four-for-a-buck calculators available at dollar stores around the country.

 

If they don't want a running total on scratch paper (they don't like changing END every phase, but aren't bothered by Stun and Body?), pass out the little calculators.

 

Let them enter their starting END. They can 'plus' and 'minus' as they go along.

 

 

I've used these little calculator for years now.

Also, another easy fix is to slip the chanracter sheet into a plastic sheet protector (Office Max, Staples, Office Depot, etc hs them). We use pens for use with overhead projectors or just waterbased felt tip pens to write directly on the covered character sheet.

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

 

Other than Mutants & Masterminds (which I found elegant in principal - no experience to say in practice, although I have some concerns), I can't recall seeing any damage save games. Ultimately, Hero is a "two sets of hit points game", isn't it?

other recently published damage save games include the half-dozen or so true 20 settings, such as caliphate nights and blue rose. Going bavk a few more years, you have the IMO underrated Blue Planet scifi game using the "synergy system" which used a damage save as well (a 3d10 dice poll instead of the single d20) which IMo was an even more elegant implementation.

 

In my own experience, i adapted damage save to my stargate campaign and my current serenity game and traveller game with great success so far. As previously observed, to jme it beats one HP systems and two HP systems for quickness, playability, customizability and fitting to genre.

 

and yes, hero is just another two hit point system like many others have been. many people like hit point systems. I am just not one of them in general.

 

Mind you, I'm also lazy. If a given game's house rules are so extensive I'm basically learning another rules system, I question whether the time investment is worthwhile.

as GM with every game i run the first thing i do is to go thru and adapt it to suit my game, my players and so forth. I don't get lazy and shy away from making the system work for us as opposed to the reverse.

 

 

I'm cusious what evolution in character design you've seen from using END to ignoring it, however. Maybe you simply have good players who aren't expoiting any new holes this approach creates (my players have never exploited the Stun lottery, so it never seems a big deal to me). Maybe, however, there have been some developments in the way characters are designed stemming from dropping END.

I do generally have good players. I am quite proud of them most of the time.

 

It does, however, bear noting that threads that start "I made this change, and now I'm having this problem" are pretty common. Varying the system without considering the fallout causes a lot of those threads.

 

there ara also plenty of threads asking for help when trying to use hero by the book. I have seen more crappy games and mistakes from Gms who were of the "wont change the system follow it to the letter" mindset thgan those who took the system and did what they wanted.

 

so does futting meat without keeping your fingers out of the way, but that doesn't mean we are better off without knives. IMo especially when using a toolkit system, the notion of the "be afraid to change the system" mindset is particularly incomprehensible to me. i have changed most every system i used for decades... so its no biggie to me.

[zornwil]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

Hmmmm, new thread time..."Why do we object to mechanics?"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

In my own experience' date=' i adapted damage save to my stargate campaign and my current serenity game and traveller game with great success so far. As previously observed, to jme it beats one HP systems and two HP systems for quickness, playability, customizability and fitting to genre.[/quote']

 

Off topic, but my biggest concern with damage save has been the "roll a 1, out of the fight immediately" issue. Do you see a lot more random one punches than would be the case in the more attrition-based "subtract from your damage pool" games? Alternatively, do you see a lot of situations where a battle that should be lost is won because of a series of lucky saves?

 

I also find it misses the "I can't take another hit like that" element when each hit that doesn't KO is just a 1 point penalty to a save roll.

 

Again, I'm coming from a position of no actual play experience here.

 

there ara also plenty of threads asking for help when trying to use hero by the book. I have seen more crappy games and mistakes from Gms who were of the "wont change the system follow it to the letter" mindset thgan those who took the system and did what they wanted.

 

I think the big difference here is in two areas. First, many changes to the system tend to be change for the sake of change. I won't run it as written and see how that works, I'll just make this change because I think it will make a "better game". The issue here is that this person doesn't really have any reason for the change - they don't know what they're trying to accomplish. By contrast, your pitch for dropping END - that you find it more consistent with the source material that fatigue be an element that does not appear so frequently - makes sense. I'm still interested in any mechanics you use when it SHOULD make an appearance, however.

 

The second is failure to consider the ripple effects. That starts these threads that complain because "I changed this element and now I'm having this problem". Gee, you doubled the cost of DEX and SPD, and now you're upset because no one will play a speedster or a martial artist - I wonder why not

 

Again, I get the sense you cover off the ripple effects from some of your comments (ie need a new system for Pushing, holding breath, a Life support type ability to reduce fatigue when it is relevant).

 

The bottom line is that, while being inordinately resistant to changing the system can be bad for the game, changes also need to be well thought out, not just made for the sake of change. Many gamers who think they're game designers introduce house rules that just don't work - but they're too married to their creation to see that objectively.

 

My theory? Try the game system as written for a while. Identify the parts that do, or do not, work for your group. Assess what changes should be made, and why. Implement them with as little change to the overall system, and using existing mechanics as much, as possible (which is why I lean to simply having abilities purchased with 0 END to get rid of END). And objectively review the rule changes after they've had some playtest time.

 

Or, if the system requires excessive change, find one that's closer to the style/feel you want. Enough major surgery to the system you're using and you've basically written your own separate system anyway.

 

It's also important to remember that the feel you want your house rule to create may not be the feel others want in their games. No system, or modification to the system, is likely to see, or should expect, near-universal acceptance. [Except mine, of course ]

[tesuji]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

 

Off topic, but my biggest concern with damage save has been the "roll a 1, out of the fight immediately" issue. Do you see a lot more random one punches than would be the case in the more attrition-based "subtract from your damage pool" games? Alternatively, do you see a lot of situations where a battle that should be lost is won because of a series of lucky saves?

All the damage save systems which rely on a single die roll, the various true 20 and MnM and my original house versions, all have HERo points. These provide the heroes and key villains the ability to reroll a single bad roll, maybe a few. They also allow many other uses, but this one is key as it prevents most of the "really wonky luck right out from the start" kind of worries people usually have with DS systems before actually trying it.

 

MnM for superheroic feel especially has a minimum 10 on reroll rule which makes it even more assured, until you run out.

I also find it misses the "I can't take another hit like that" element when each hit that doesn't KO is just a 1 point penalty to a save roll.

i found the reverse. as penalties begin to stack up, the reroll coverage becomes less and less of a guarantee, while with hit points you have a much more predictable "threshold" to handle, particularly when dealing with bucket-o-dice damage.

 

I find it adds tension not diminishes it.

 

One particular aspect is that the damage save systems used, including my house versions, have intermediate effects like stunned or dazed and so forth which are often not "rerolled" away like the KO results obviously would be. So any given hit is likely to have some effect, which again tends to throw the "uh oh" moments into play more than just the "up or down" you get with hit points. CON stunning never happened all that much in HERO in my experience, but stunning happens much more frequently in MnM.

I think the big difference here is in two areas. First, many changes to the system tend to be change for the sake of change.

not in my experience. I find more often the Gm has a specific reason for making a change. its not just "why not". Maybe our associateions are different. Take this thread for instance. the Gm wanted to ditch endurance because his players didn't like it, not just because a change was fun.

 

Changing a system is work and most GMs i know dont do extra work without a reason.

 

The second is failure to consider the ripple effects. That starts these threads that complain because "I changed this element and now I'm having this problem". Gee, you doubled the cost of DEX and SPD, and now you're upset because no one will play a speedster or a martial artist - I wonder why not

of course Gms can make errors. They can make errors with system changes, with setting issues, with scenario balance, with all sorts of things.

They can even make errors by sticking to the letter of the rule when it is inappropriate.

 

IMX the Gm who doesn't view the book rules as right, but vierws every rule, wheter its in the book or of his own devising with the same scrutiny and willingness to change when he sees fit, do better jobs at GMing. As such, i encourage Gms to try things as often as possible, to change things if they do indeed think it will make for a "better game". Will there be mistakes? Sure. but you are just as likely to get them from not understanding a system and sticking to the written stuff as from coming up with your own stuff for reasons.

 

As i often describe it... the bought rpg is the fast food meal. adding salt, pepper, ctsup, or asking for no pickles and extra mayo is fine if that suits your taste better. Might you sometimes oversalt the food? Sure. But i would rather eat three good hamburgers and toss one bad than have four mediocre ones.

 

Again, I get the sense you cover off the ripple effects from some of your comments (ie need a new system for Pushing, holding breath, a Life support type ability to reduce fatigue when it is relevant).

i have been doing this a while.

The bottom line is that, while being inordinately resistant to changing the system can be bad for the game, changes also need to be well thought out, not just made for the sake of change. Many gamers who think they're game designers introduce house rules that just don't work - but they're too married to their creation to see that objectively.

I have seen too many crappy published games, and too many decent published games which were not what i wanted, and particpiated in too many compromises for publication of RPG situations to give any serious credence to the notion that rules are "better" because they are published. If a Gm doesn't understand the system enough to evaluate changes, armed with knowledge of his players and his style and his campaign, then he is IMX just as likely to screw the game up tryihng to run it "by the book".

 

abd getting married to the published systejm can be just as bad as married to your own changes.

 

Particularly with a game like HERo which, while incredibly complex, has precious little guidelines for balancing encounters. It has basically no CR/El system to suck at. The best advice Gms get when asking "how to balance encounters" is usually "evalaute the combat yourself" as none of the various numbers provides a solid easy-to-follow benchmark for combat balance.

 

 

My theory? Try the game system as written for a while. Identify the parts that do, or do not, work for your group. Assess what changes should be made, and why. Implement them with as little change to the overall system, and using existing mechanics as much, as possible (which is why I lean to simply having abilities purchased with 0 END to get rid of END). And objectively review the rule changes after they've had some playtest time.

my theory: you know your players, your campaign, and your style better than any RPG publishers ever did.

 

evaluate your players, your style and your intended campaign first, then choose a system that seems close. Change whatever you want up front and proceed. Don't assume a published rule is better for you and yours than one you think is more fitting. if you make a mistake, fix it and move on.

 

 

It's also important to remember that the feel you want your house rule to create may not be the feel others want in their games. No system, or modification to the system, is likely to see, or should expect, near-universal acceptance. [Except mine, of course ]

agreed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Getting rid of Endurance

 

I think the big difference here is in two areas. First' date=' many changes to the system tend to be change for the sake of change. I won't run it as written and see how that works, I'll just make this change because I think it will make a "better game". The issue here is that this person doesn't really have any reason for the change - they don't know what they're trying to accomplish. By contrast, your pitch for dropping END - that you find it more consistent with the source material that fatigue be an element that does not appear so frequently - makes sense. [/quote']

 

not in my experience. I find more often the Gm has a specific reason for making a change. its not just "why not". Maybe our associateions are different. Take this thread for instance. the Gm wanted to ditch endurance because his players didn't like it' date=' not just because a change was fun.[/quote']

 

In this case, I think we get back to WHY the players don't like it. If they don't like bookkeeping, a game based on damage saves may be preferable overall, as it will also reduce the STUN and BOD bookkeeping. Simply using 0 END powers also takes care of the bookkeeping issue without dropping the concept for those that are OK with it. I'm also curious whether this is a unanimous feel (all the players and the GM dislike END), or whether there's a few who dislike it, a few more who are ambivalent and a few who like the mechanic. Should we revise a mechanic that half the group likes and half the group dislikes, or come up with a means of letting those who like it use it, and mitigating the impact for those who don't like it? [Much like those who dislike rolling huge numbers of dice take attack powers that cost more than 5 points per 1d6.]

 

The second is failure to consider the ripple effects. That starts these threads that complain because "I changed this element and now I'm having this problem". Gee, you doubled the cost of DEX and SPD, and now you're upset because no one will play a speedster or a martial artist - I wonder why not

 

Again, I get the sense you cover off the ripple effects from some of your comments (ie need a new system for Pushing, holding breath, a Life support type ability to reduce fatigue when it is relevant).

 

of course Gms can make errors. They can make errors with system changes, with setting issues, with scenario balance, with all sorts of things. They can even make errors by sticking to the letter of the rule when it is inappropriate.

 

IMX the Gm who doesn't view the book rules as right, but vierws every rule, wheter its in the book or of his own devising with the same scrutiny and willingness to change when he sees fit, do better jobs at GMing. As such, i encourage Gms to try things as often as possible, to change things if they do indeed think it will make for a "better game". Will there be mistakes? Sure. but you are just as likely to get them from not understanding a system and sticking to the written stuff as from coming up with your own stuff for reasons.

 

Most of the ripple effect issues arise from GM's who have an insufficient understanding of the rules AND the impact of their changes. If, for example, I dislike damage saves because I've played one game and my character was KO'd early on by a lucky blow, so I sat and watched the others play for several hours, should we:

 

(a) Revisit the rules to see if we were playing it right, and find (perhaps) that Hero Point rule that was overlooked?

 

( Play a few more games to see whether that was just a random fluke that will rarely or never recur?

 

© Consider a simple modification with minimal ripple effects (eg. adding Hero Points, or increasing them)?

 

(d) Throw out the damage save in favour of a hit point mechanic, forcing massive change to the system as a whole?

 

(e) find a new system which lacks Damage Saves.

 

I'd start with (a) and (, possibly move on to ©, and likely conclude (e) is the answer if there's no simple way to solve the problem. I'd rather play the game than fight with the system. Mind you, I'm also annoyed by free-flowing house rules that change from week to week, making it tough to remember what the "rule de jour" is.

 

The bottom line is that, while being inordinately resistant to changing the system can be bad for the game, changes also need to be well thought out, not just made for the sake of change. Many gamers who think they're game designers introduce house rules that just don't work - but they're too married to their creation to see that objectively.

 

My theory? Try the game system as written for a while. Identify the parts that do, or do not, work for your group. Assess what changes should be made, and why. Implement them with as little change to the overall system, and using existing mechanics as much, as possible (which is why I lean to simply having abilities purchased with 0 END to get rid of END). And objectively review the rule changes after they've had some playtest time.

 

Or, if the system requires excessive change, find one that's closer to the style/feel you want. Enough major surgery to the system you're using and you've basically written your own separate system anyway.

 

As i often describe it... the bought rpg is the fast food meal. adding salt, pepper, ctsup, or asking for no pickles and extra mayo is fine if that suits your taste better. Might you sometimes oversalt the food? Sure. But i would rather eat three good hamburgers and toss one bad than have four mediocre ones.

 

I have seen too many crappy published games, and too many decent published games which were not what i wanted, and particpiated in too many compromises for publication of RPG situations to give any serious credence to the notion that rules are "better" because they are published. If a Gm doesn't understand the system enough to evaluate changes, armed with knowledge of his players and his style and his campaign, then he is IMX just as likely to screw the game up tryihng to run it "by the book".

 

abd getting married to the published systejm can be just as bad as married to your own changes.

 

To extend your analogy, I generally prefer to try my meal before adding salt. If it needs salt, I'll add it then. If I'm familiar with the cook and the dish, I may know already that I need to add salt, but when an unfamiliar dish arrives out of the kitchen, I have no way of knowing in advance.

 

Being married to the published system can be just as problematic. After all, the designer(s) is human too, and may well be married to his own "house rule" which is now part of the published design. As great a problem is being married to the system, and thus unwilling to change to a system that would better suit the desired gameplay.

 

Now, if that's a system you and your players are already familiar with, you may well be in a good position to assess appropriate house rules. If it's a new system you're just changing to, I consider it important to build some experience with the system as written before making a spur of the moment change. I've heard many gamers complaiun a certain system (whatever it may be) is "slow". When discussing further, we discover that the GM and 5 players played the system twice, and spent a lot of time looking up rules. No kidding - the first and second time I play a game, I normally don't have 100% rules knowledge either! But they just go back to the old system they're familiar with because "it's quicker". [in fairness, my view is always that a change needs to provide significant benefits - if the benefits are minor, they aren't worth the hassle of a major change.]