Converting

[Lord Mhoram]

Just wondering the approach people use when converting material from other games to HERO. I'm in the midst of coverting all the "crunch bits" I like from D&D into HERO terms, and I tend to do a tone and feel conversion, if you will. I try and make the ability work in such a way that the benefits and drawbacks fit HERO, rather than trying to do a strait mechanical conversions. From looking at links of other conversions, it looks like people try and keep the mechanics closer to the source of the conversions.

 

A quick example that I had posted in the HERO system discussion board: Rather than going for a specific conversion of Power Attack, Combat expertise and the like I came up with -

4 Levels Hand to Hand Combat (20) Can only use this on a phase when attacking (-1/2), -1 OCV penalty for each + 1 DCV or Damage, and Vice Versa (-1).

Total cost 8 points.

 

Basically it lets the character trade his base CV around like levels (a la hero), with the inspiration being the D&D feats.

 

When I built my magic system, I did the same thing - it comes off in many ways like the Rolemaster magic system, but is very much a HERO design.

Just curious.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Converting

 

Hero Games Discussion Boards - Resources & Compilations

 

Anthropomorphic/Furry Hero Resources

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31789

 

Champions (Super)Hero Resources

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31865

 

Battletech/Mechwarrior Hero Resources

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31861

 

Pulp Hero Resources

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30071

 

Star Wars Hero Resources

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30644

 

Victorian Hero Resources

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30759

 

Regency HERO Resources

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27221

 

[Compilation] "From Other Hero Forum to Pulp Hero Forum"

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30928

 

[Compilation] "to Fantasy HERO Conversions & Adaptations"

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24968

 

[Compilation] "to Star HERO Conversions & Adaptations"

http:// http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24969

 

Villians & Vigilantes (aka Living Legends) "to HERO Adaptations & Conversions"

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26137

 

Brave New World "to HERO Conversions & Adaptations"

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28266

 

GURPS International Super Teams "to HERO Adaptations & Conversions*

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26108

 

Tolkien's World "to Fantasy HERO Conversion or Adaptions"

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26584

 

 

 

'nough said

 

QM

[Lethosos]

Re: Converting

 

Please note that what World of Darkness conversions out there is incomplete, and can do with a better write up. Right now, I'm just trying to set up a foundation for me to throw it up on the web, but I'm primarily focusing on the WW:tA series. One of the things that struck me as interesting is the resolution method--based on successes, which is easy to do in HERO as how well you did beyond the target number you rolled. I'm still fiddling with the wetwork on Skills/Talents/Knowledges, but given the flexability of the system, I'd have to adopt the same through fiddling with HD2. Bleah.

 

At least COM can now play an important part, huh?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Converting

 

Star Hero Forum, HALO HERO.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Converting

 

My Hero System Resources & Compilations

http://www.herogames.com/forums/show...5&postcount=81

 

'nough said

 

QM

 

404ed. The "... "are showing as the URL.

The sigline link works though.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Converting

 

While I find the links useful, I was mostly looking for a discussion on approach to conversions rather than the conversions themselves.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Converting

 

Check out Killer Shrike's Web Page.

http://www.killershrike.com/

 

 

 

Cheers

 

QM

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Converting

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/SystemConversion.shtml

[Midas]

Re: Converting

 

While I find the links useful' date=' I was mostly looking for a discussion on approach to conversions rather than the conversions themselves. [/quote']

 

Are you trying to convert characters, races, scenarios, or magic systems? And from what systems?

 

Assuming you are doing races, from DnD, I use an "eyeball" approach. Say an Ogre (4hd, ac4). I make a guestimate of stats (high physical characteristics, low mental ones, very heavy leather armor), then just add say 3 levels with all combat(for being three levels above 1st level). For stuff that is closer to Hero, like GURPS or BRP, I just do a straight 'port, then adjust the die rolls to something similar to the chances in the origin system.

 

(Yes, I know that Hero uses a log scale and the others are straight lines, but that really only matters once you are talking about huge critters -and you don't really *need* to stat Cthulhu out, do you?)

 

For example, I am trying to convert an old Call of Cthulhu scenario to HERO, for which the villain is an undead. He has a POW of 25, which would be about an 18 in Hero terms. However, the text states that he has been hoarding and building his POW for 300 years, so I think an EGO of 25 is fine.

 

Midas

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Converting

 

I usually do a pretty 'crunchy' take, based off the notes in the old 4th Edition FH book and a little from Killer Shrike's site.

 

Stats covert thusly, Hero on the left, D&D on the right:

STR=STR

DEX=DEX

CON=CON

BOD=10+(HP/15)

INT=INT

EGO=WIS

PRE=CHA

COM=Discretionary

PD=Double Base

ED=Double Base

SPD=Buy up 1pt from DEX (14 Dex=2.4 SPD, buy up to 3)

REC=As Figured

END=As Figured

STUN=As Figured

 

For abilities, I mostly try to get to the feel, rather than hard crunch, though, especially since I have no desire to convert the entire D&D spell library (for instance). I usually do Power Attack and Combat Expertise as martial arts styles, with PA heavy on Damage and CE heavy on DCV bonuses. Then, for instance, Improved Trip just becomes a Martial Throw.

 

Armor and Natural Armor bonuses are straight Armor conversions (+2 Natural Armor=+2PD/ED Armor). Deflection bonuses are DCV (I usually halve these or they get ridiculous fast, so a +4 Deflection bonus is a +2 DCV).

 

Damage Reduction is extra PD Armor, hardened that doesn't apply against something, limitation based on how rare the thing is. So DR 5/Magic is +5PD Armor, hardened, not vs magic weapons (-X), where X is appropriate for your game. A Rakshasa's DR 15/Piercing and Good is 15PD Armor, not vs piercing holy weapons (-1/4).

 

Energy Resistance works the same way. +X ED Armor, hardened, only vs (Energy).

 

I'm considering doing Spell Resistance as requiring all spells to take RSR, subject to Skill Contests, which are obviously won against creatures without the Power: Spell Resistance skill, but still debating on that.

[Markdoc]

Re: Converting

 

I tend to go for flavour rather than attempting to model directly, with the emphasis on adhering to Hero rules rather than the rules I draw from.

 

For example, I've converted Mike Surbrook's list of D&D feats to pure Hero system for our game since the "prerequisites" are purely a D&D metasystem bit. You have a prereq, since in D&D, a feat is a feat is a feat - since they all "cost" the same, it prevents you taking the best feat immediately. In Hero system, you pay points - if you want a crunchier feat, you pay more points.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Converting

 

Are you trying to convert characters, races, scenarios, or magic systems? And from what systems?

 

Midas

 

For fantasy mostly D&D, with some rolemaster thrown in.

 

I'm doing races, feats, and spells. I did the work to convert the magic system - it has a rolemastery feel to it.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Converting

 

I tend to go for flavour rather than attempting to model directly, with the emphasis on adhering to Hero rules rather than the rules I draw from.

 

Thanks.

 

I was hoping I was not alone - one of the reason for posting the thread I think. I had surfed a bunch of X to HERO threads and sites, and most of them were very much a direct model or mechanics conversion, and I tend to go towards feel and tone, keeping the mechanics HERO as well.

 

My conversion mania started with a realisation a few weeks ago. I play D&D solo with the wife, and while I like a fair amount of it, I get very unsatified feelings as time goes on, and as she doesn't have the time to dig nitty gritty into th rules, and uses published adventures, things slow down at mid to high levels.

Then, when considering which next D&D books to buy, I relaized that the things I really liked about the game were all either mechanical bits or background material - the background material can be stolen wholecloth and the cruchy bits can be converted.

To be specific, I would think "Ohh, I'd love to play X race with X class and get X feat" - to be honest I have about 15 characters I've had this idea with waiting in the wings. But D&D play was unsatisfying (to use the GNS model, I'm not a Gamist, and D&D tends that direction). Then after how many years of doing HERO I thought "I'll just convert" - and I was embarressed that it took me that long. I think my mindset was in doing a strait mechanical conversion rather than a tone and feel; once I realized I could just steal the bits I like and put them in FH, I was off.

 

Thanks for the replies so far everyone.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Converting

 

I'm considering doing Spell Resistance as requiring all spells to take RSR, subject to Skill Contests, which are obviously won against creatures without the Power: Spell Resistance skill, but still debating on that.

 

That is what I ended up doing for counterspelling. I didn't want it to be easy, so I had the dispell on a Skill vs Skill roll.

 

In my game I have a D vs Magic that is 1 for 1 or 3 for 2 for resistant. I think of it as all the Defenses wtih a - X liim (only vs magic). It just simplifies things. For spell resistance I just give then some of that - the amount depending on the strength of the SR. So it doesn't have the same mechanics of "spell work full or not at all" but keeps the flavor os certain creatures/beings being tougher against magic.

[Susano]

Re: Converting

 

I tend to go for flavour rather than attempting to model directly, with the emphasis on adhering to Hero rules rather than the rules I draw from.

 

For example, I've converted Mike Surbrook's list of D&D feats to pure Hero system for our game since the "prerequisites" are purely a D&D metasystem bit. You have a prereq, since in D&D, a feat is a feat is a feat - since they all "cost" the same, it prevents you taking the best feat immediately. In Hero system, you pay points - if you want a crunchier feat, you pay more points.

 

Ahem... not my list, it was sent to me.

[Susano]

Re: Converting

 

HOW DO I...?

 

http://surbrook.devermore.net/herosource/how.html

 

An article I need to revise and update for 5th Edition and my own advancement as a HERO System character designer.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Converting

 

HOW DO I...?

 

http://surbrook.devermore.net/herosource/how.html

 

An article I need to revise and update for 5th Edition and my own advancement as a HERO System character designer.

 

 

Cool. Nifty.

[John Desmarais]

Re: Converting

 

Just wondering the approach people use when converting material from other games to HERO.

 

For the most part I do conceptual level conversions. The whatever from the source system serves as the basis for the concept, then I create a Hero System thing that matches that concept.

 

Direct "numbers to numbers" conversions are something I only do as an intellectual exercise and rarey if ever actually use in game.

[War Cry]

Re: Converting

 

My methods are probably a bit more abstract than most. When converting, I go by the written description of what I am working off of and totally ignore the numbers and such. If there is no written description, I'll look at the picture and use that. End result, it looks and behaves like the original (mostly), but its overall "power Level" is a surprise. It seems to keep players on their toes.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Converting

 

Some key design goals for me:

a) When in doubt, the simplest solution is likely the best solution

Model the ability to fit the target system, rather than change the system to fit the source material

c) Maintain relative footing in powerlevel of abilities

d) Make abilities as modular and generic (and therefore reusable) as possible

e) Make abilities that are priced appropriately, and preferably are scalable with an affordable buy in as opposed to a large flat sum

f) Avoid making abilities that are more trouble than they are worth and will detract from actual game play, even if they are "accurate" to the source material

 

 

Personally, I go for a HERO-centric conversion. I look at the general idea of what something does in whatever game system I am converting, and re-express it in HERO terms. The goal is to maintain the same general relative power / functionality.

 

Sometimes this intuitively maps to a pretty straigtforward and obvious match; for instance a +1 to hit in one system generally maps to a +1 to hit in the HERO System.

 

Other times the approach is more indirect, but results in a rexpression of an ability in terms meaningful to the HERO System rather than a literal translation of the ability. For instance I map the D&D 3e "Uncanny Dodge (DEX Bonus to AC)" ability as Defense Manuever IV which is an approximation between the two game systems. D&D 3e Power Attack can be modeled in many different ways, including something as simple as +3 OCV with Haymaker, or as complex as HtH CSLs converted to damage when appropriate, Deadly Blow with an always occurs SE: -x CV, and many other ways as well.

 

Other times some ability is too rooted in mechanics that are meaningful in the source system, but are meaningless in the HERO System without bending the game, in which case I either do something to approximate it if it can be done elegantly, or else just ignore it completely. For instance, the various AoO rules from D&D 3e are meaningless in the HERO System, so I ignore them -- the HERO mechanic for accomplishing that sort of effect is to hold an action or Abort to a defense, depending. Yes, a literal translation of AoO could be done via triggers or a damage shield, or by altering the rules of the HERO System, but that's a very heavy handed approach to model a mechanic that isnt very good to begin with (IMO), complicates characters on the one hand or goes against the natural flow of HERO System combats respectively. If you are particularly attached to a specific MECHANIC as opposed to a general CONCEPT, you're better off sticking with the game system that has that mechanic, IMO.

 

Other times the HERO System affords multiple ways to model the same idea, some of which are equally valid, others of which might rely on options that perhaps not all GM's use. In many cases offering multiple ways to model the same basic concept with differing pros and cons (and ideally no clearly superior method) offers players what amounts to a customization node, where they can make their character stand out from other characters by using a variant way of modeling a common ability, with different pros and cons. For instance, I offer five distinctly different ways to model the D&D 3e "Rage" ability (with internal variations possible in each of the five distinct methods); three different ways to do the D&D 3e "Sneak Attack" ability, four ways to model higher "Attacks per Round", two ways to model the "Favored Enemy" ability, five different ways to model Monk HtH combat abilities, and so on.

 

Also, the main advantage to converting to the HERO System is the added flexibility of the system, so a majorly important idea to keep in mind is to not necessarily FORCE players to use a particular conversion unless there's a good reason to. Take three theoretical players for instance:

 

Player A played the original games system and loved it. They think about their character in terms of that game's mechanics, and effectively designed their character to use the abilities the game makes available. They like a structured approach where X ability is defined a certain way, and its like that on every character that has it. They likely are not comfortable with a wide open anything the GM allows goes sort of game, and shy away from the idea that X ability can be defined in many different ways, and the same in-game attack / ability can have widely different mechanics behind it.

 

Player B is not particularly married to any particular mechanic; they approach games from a metagame perspective and chose abilities that give them the most oomph, however that is defined in that game system. They really don't care what it is or what you call it so long as its powerful and gives them a real advantage.

 

Player C has a strong idea of their character's concept, and have chosen abilities from the game they were playing that most closely correspond with their concept. Unless that system was particularly flexible, they have probably encountered situations where they simply could not get the effect they wanted and either had to comprimise their concept or do some mental approximation to translate some ability the mechanics allow into what they really wanted it to be. This Player is not attached to the rules of the game system, and in fact are likely dissatisfied with them in some way.

 

 

Now, there are obviously other player types, but these three types are the ones I've encountered most often when bringing players from one game into the HERO System (which I've done a lot).

 

Player A is a hard sell. They like the game their playing, and are resistant to the HERO System. The very best way to transition this player into the HERO System is to make it as painless as possible with a list of specific translations of abilities from that game into the HERO System. If you can give them a framework or structured approach that is similar to what they are familiar with, they are much more comfortable giving it a try. For this player ambivalence is bad, flexibility is bad, genericness is bad, structure is good, similarity is good, simplicity is good.

 

Player B is usually a relatively easy sell. If your new game system will let them design and / or play a powerful character with cool abilities, they can get on board with that. For this player neat modular abilities are good, but the aggregate sum of the parts is better. A list of abilities to pick from is good, but some variants that offer a means to unexpected utility and distinctiveness are better. Flexibility is good if it can be exploited, some structure and similarity is good because it provides a baseline to compare their power against, genericness and ambivalence don't matter because the player tends to think generically anyway as they just care about the end effect, some amount of simplicity is good because this sort of player values efficiency but on the other hand some complexity offers them the loopholes and opportunities for exploitation that allows them to make a more efficient / capable character than the next guy.

 

Player C is usually the easiest sell, but conversely the hardest to please. Bereft of the rigidity of structured game they have a tendency to traipse all over the place and get carried away redefining their character in a more open system. Regardless, this player really doesnt want to see a list of defined abilities, they want to translate their concept into the new game and not compromise their vision. They are very comfortable with the idea of thinking in terms of "what it looks like", and are often not as comfortable with the idea of "how it is defined mechanically". For this player ambivalence is good because they don't want to be forced into picking a flat ability, flexibility is good because they want the freedom to adjust abilities to suit their character rather than the other way around, genericness is fine once they realize they have the freedom to define the "what it looks like" part, structure is bad because it limits their imagination, similarity is unimportant except where some element formed a default assumption of their original character concept, simplicity is often good because they don't want to think in terms of game mechanics and want that aspect of the character to be transparent.

 

 

So, basically, I provide conversions to give some consistency in bringing characters into the HERO System, and provide a lot of abilities to allow players to map their characters in, but remain flexible and treat each character individually. When converting players I try to approach them from the angle that will appeal most to them, while still maintaining the overall power level and feel I want for my game, and some level of consistency.

[Lethosos]

Re: Converting

 

My rough and ready is basically the eyeball method, when it comes to D&D. Fantasy HERO just works out better, IMO, so I figure out the background/effect, nothing more.

 

For example, if you want to do pre-built generation lists, I'd take 15 point for a race, and 40-50 for a basic "class." Go see the Fighter variants--the two I submitted are from Sword & Fist, and Masters of the Wild, respectively.

 

It's so much easier just to do the concept, and not the mechanics...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Converting (the masses)

 

Maybe we should convince Steve to write a new book:

Missionary HERO: How to convert RPG heathens!

 

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Converting

 

Wouldn't you rather they just come to it on their own?

 

No?

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: Converting

 

Wouldn't you rather they just come to it on their own?

 

No?

 

NO!! Stone the infidels with their own 20-sided dice!!

 

No No No!! Not one at a time!! Throw big heaping handfuls!!

 

[Lethosos]

Re: Converting

 

I peffer making them walk on their own collections of d4s, barefoot.

 

Those things are just as nasty as caltrops.