New Limitations to Old Powers in New Books

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

What I think is needed (and I might do after GenCon) is some sort of condensation of the FAQ which focuses on stuff you should know for character creation. Right now it's very hard to look through the FAQ for "stuff that I might want to know when making a character". I believe that it would be possible to present that information in a more friendly manner, and keep that updated as the FAQ changes.

 

Geoff, that would be a wonderful contribution, and I'm sure you'll get cyber hugs and kisses from Herodom Assembled if you take that on.

 

What I feel would be really helpful, though, would be a compilation of all the new Adders, Advantages and Limitations that have made it into the FAQ (and maybe the USPD). Many people don't even know that they exist unless they happen to stumble across them. I'm not sure whether Steve Long would object to putting the Data Base ones up on the website for free, but those in the FAQ are free already, so should pose no copyright problem.

[Killer Shrike]

Actually, if Ben & Steve are amenable they could create a seperate Forum ("FAQ"), give Geoff (or some other poor volunteer) Admin rights to it, and make it non-postable for non-Admins.

 

Then he could come up with an orderly methodology to add each Power, Advantage, Lim, etc as a Topic, and then copy and paste the FAQ bits into it.

 

This would make it searchable using the boards search engine. New info would naturally bounce to the top. Etc.....

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

We understand your position. The only part you keep failing to understand is that there are mistakes in FREd. In Change Enviroment, for example, It was Steve's intention that the power could only have 1 Combat Effect unless the GM ruled otherwise. The fact that Steve did not make this clear in FREd is why it was put in the FAQ.

 

Even though FREd was sitting around on a shelf for 2+ years it was still published in a hurry and certain things were overlooked. If FREd were being published today the playtesters would have had a chance to go over it with a fine-tooth comb and many of the FAQ clarifications would have been caught and added to the book before it went to print. As it is we must deal with an imperfect FREd. So ultimately it comes down to playing by the "written" rules (as given in the book) or playing by the "intended" rules (as clarified in the FAQ). In either event this will not change until an updated version of FREd is published.

 

And also while I do understand your point about everyone not having access to the FAQ, you, and the other people on this message boards, do. So when we are discussing the rules here we all have access to the same information; and when we are playing with people who do not we have the ability to tell them the new rules. That is a big part of the GM's job.

And yet, regardless of Mr. Long's intent, there is no harm, no foul to playing without that adder. Had DOJ paused to notice, they would have perceived there was no hue and cry for the horribly broken change environment rules concerning multiple effects. It just wasn't a problem. If there's no problem then the "solution's" cost of providing points of confusion becomes the true problem. Frankly, I have never heard anyone complain when somebody assumed TK picked up liquids. I have been playing the game for over 10 years and that has never come up as an issue for my groups or in stories other gamers have told me. What I have heard about it was only criticism when it was included in the Ultimate Mentalist.

 

It's one thing if Mr. Long had forgotten to make endurance costs increase for autofire attacks or something to that effect, but muddying the waters over a +5 adder to change environment is merely a nuisance. If these are the only items that were intended to be included that weren't, we could have lived well enough without them. If he wants to make a rules change that seems warranted by the buzz I have heard among players on the boards, in stores, and in my group, he should feel free to fix damage shield because it is messed up.

 

Sometimes, Monolith, I think you think everyone here works for DOJ.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

Sometimes, Monolith, I think you think everyone here works for DOJ.

I do not think any such thing. But then again I do not think we need an 80 post thread because one over zealous poster wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Go figure.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

I do not think any such thing. But then again I do not think we need an 80 post thread because one over zealous poster wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Go figure.

Smiley faces don't change the tenor of your statements. You were condescending to Tesuji and myself and continue to condescend to me. If you don't think the subject was worth 80 posts then you don't have to post. You seem to get awfully defensive any time someone has a beef with something DOJ is doing. I don't think it's a public company so I don't imagine you own any stock.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

Smiley faces don't change the tenor of your statements. You were condescending to Tesuji and myself and continue to condescend to me.

That is because you are a reactionists. Everytime something comes along which you do not like you immediately jump upon your message board soapbox and spout to the world how it is all wrong. This issue is not a big dea. I think I have only said 3-4 times now that if you do not like the change then do not use it. Of course you keep ignore that statement for some reason.

 

DOJ has changed numerous rules over the last 18 months. I can only guess that as you learn of each of the changes you will jump right back up upon your soapbox and start spouting how they are all wrong too. But every time you do that I will still be around saying "Calm down. It is not that big of a deal. It is just a rules change."

 

And by the way, I have no particular love for DOJ. They and I have butted heads on more than one occassion. I just happen to have a stronger dislike for people who spend all their time telling me the sky is falling every time a cloud passes over head.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

That is because you are a reactionists. Everytime something comes along which you do not like you immediately jump upon your message board soapbox and spout to the world how it is all wrong. This issue is not a big dea. I think I have only said 3-4 times now that if you do not like the change then do not use it. Of course you keep ignore that statement for some reason.

 

DOJ has changed numerous rules over the last 18 months. I can only guess that as you learn of each of the changes you will jump right back up upon your soapbox and start spouting how they are all wrong too. But every time you do that I will still be around saying "Calm down. It is not that big of a deal. It is just a rules change."

 

And by the way, I have no particular love for DOJ. They and I have butted heads on more than one occassion. I just happen to have a stronger dislike for people who spend all their time telling me the sky is falling every time a cloud passes over head.

Good night. Have you read my posts? I never claimed the sky is falling. Please show me where I said the sky was falling? I kept on saying that I thought characters built only using FRED as a source should be 100% legal and you disagreed with me, every time, and I responded. I also brought up concerns with the use of the FAQ and you responded.

 

If this is simply a molehill why do you respond. It should be beneath your notice.

 

What do you think the forums are for? I thought they are for people to speak about issues they are interested in. If you are "above" my petty interests then just go on about your business. Talk about soapbox, whoo! I didn't know you have a dislike of me but I... think I can cope with that.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

If this is simply a molehill why do you respond. It should be beneath your notice.

Well I have to respond because I am over 1,000 posts behind you. That's what I get for not spending all my time in the non-gaming forums.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Monolith

I realize you are new to the boards, but most of the things the vast majority of HERO System players learned about the game came from character examples, not book examples. The fact that you did not buy CKC does not mean that the majority of HERO System gamers did not as well. And when I see a rule actually being used in print I definately give it value over what is not.

 

And the rules FAQ does state that a GM should generally not allow more than one Combat Effect per Change Enviroment, but that the GM can allow it if they wish; and we all know the GM can allow anything if he wishes.

 

I haven't read through the thread entirely yet but I have to pause and say I VEHEMENTLY disagree.

 

It does not matter if the "majority of HERO System gamers" do or do not buy a book published post-5th edition. The 5th edition is the rule book, the only rule book until the 6th or "5.5" or whatever HERO puts out that IS specifically a rulebook. You and I ought to be able to sit and play a game based upon that and nothing else (save common sense, yes, I grant), otherwise we're back to the same house rule situation you previously claimed to dislike. I think it's folly to assume every HERO gamer will buy every HERO supplement and wade through those and the FAQ and the errata to arrive at the "correct" rules. Supplements are really like house rules and settings, they should not be mistaken as "required" to the degree that any rules are required.

 

Now, I grant you that the errata and FAQ are specific and deliberate and clear changes to the rules. I have a problem though with a FAQ that continues to grow and get so detailed. HERO is very much becoming a "bible study" game with the FAQ and supplements. Now nearly every game gets to some point of this, of course, but a sprawling FAQ and oddball conflicts spread througout the "gospel" is creating an increasingly interpretive situation.

 

And to the FAQ, I say that "should generally not allow" is an important difference from "should not allow". I think it's clear in the former case, the actual "should generally not" case, that there is no rule even implying that an adder is necessary, simply that this is something to be done with caution, for which no specific game balancer exists.

 

Then you have the confusion that Hero Designer will not support these many incremental changes yet purports to "enforce the rules". Monolith, I give you credit for consistency so this is not directed at you - I realize you want HD to support these incremental changes per each product. And you're right in one respect - HERO can't have it both ways. They can't be a living breathing "evolving" ruleset and claim a software that maintains all the complex rules.

 

So to me the obvious thing is for HERO to simplify, first of all, and second of all for the considered standard practice for cons, etc., to be the 5th edition book and anything outside of that to be considered a house rule. Of course you can say "House Rule: Adopting Adder as published for CE". But it has to be STATED and cannot be assumed.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Monolith

...But when I am discussing rules in this forum I will only discuss official rules, no matter which book, errata, or FAQ they are presented in. ...

 

What if they are printed by another company under license? Are those official?

 

...To me this is not something to get up on a soap box about. There are far too many real problems with the system we could be working on.

 

Like your outrage that Hero Designer won't put the Adders from USPD/the FAQ into its product, even though it would take you 5 minutes to do so yourself? You see, I think this is the root of the other issue you are concerned about, and philosophically I think the bigger issue IS this issue of things being added throughout the lifecycle. Especially those that don't seem of any great consequence - Damage Shield, whichever way it changes, clearly has a more obvious points and balance impact, given the outcry, where was the concern on CE driving this? Someone's character was really unbalanced by 5 or 10 points?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by zornwil

ISo to me the obvious thing is for HERO to simplify, first of all, and second of all for the considered standard practice for cons, etc., to be the 5th edition book and anything outside of that to be considered a house rule. Of course you can say "House Rule: Adopting Adder as published for CE". But it has to be STATED and cannot be assumed.

5th Edition did simplify. The problem is everyone then started asking DOJ: "what if?" All those thousands of "what ifs" changed the rules over the last 18 months. We started asking questions which Steve never envisioned when he originally started writing the manuscript some 5 years ago. So now the game is already HERO System 5.5. Just in this case the .5 version is contained in a separate Genre-By-Genre document and a 100 page FAQ.

 

I do agree that we should be able to pick up FREd and play a game, and for the most part we can, but that does not change the fact that the rules are continuing to evolve and expand; and most of the new rules have only made the game better.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

5th Edition did simplify. The problem is everyone then started asking DOJ: "what if?" All those thousands of "what ifs" changed the rules over the last 18 months. We started asking questions which Steve never envisioned when he originally started writing the manuscript some 5 years ago. So now the game is already HERO System 5.5. Just in this case the .5 version is contained in a separate Genre-By-Genre document and a 100 page FAQ.

 

I do agree that we should be able to pick up FREd and play a game, and for the most part we can, but that does not change the fact that the rules are continuing to evolve and expand; and most of the new rules have only made the game better.

It's the "for the most part" in your statement that creates an obvious conflict between your position and mine. Also, it is very debatable about whether the changes are good are not.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by zornwil

What if they are printed by another company under license? Are those official?

The only things which are official are those which DOJ dictates as such. I do not think anything in the Kandris Seal, for example, is considered "official."

 

Like your outrage that Hero Designer won't put the Adders from USPD/the FAQ into its product, even though it would take you 5 minutes to do so yourself? You see, I think this is the root of the other issue you are concerned about, and philosophically I think the bigger issue IS this issue of things being added throughout the lifecycle.

Hero Designer is not the issue. I personally understand that the rules are always changing. My issues with Hero Designer is that Dan refuses to change the software to reflect the rules Steve has put in place.

 

Especially those that don't seem of any great consequence - Damage Shield, whichever way it changes, clearly has a more obvious points and balance impact, given the outcry, where was the concern on CE driving this? Someone's character was really unbalanced by 5 or 10 points?

I happen to like change. A constantly improving game is one that I want to play. If this game did not change people would still be having the Great Linked Debates every month.

 

I also have no issues over 5 points. I do not even think it is an issue. I see it as nothing more than a rules change that you can either use or not use.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

It's the "for the most part" in your statement that creates an obvious conflict between your position and mine.

I think we can both sit down at a table and play a game directly from FREd. When I first started my new campaign I made of point of only playing with the rules from FREd for the first 6 months. I wanted to test the rules before I started changing them. There is no major problems with them. But having said that many new rules and rules changes have made the game better over the last 18 months (especially for people who are not into playing simple character concepts).

 

Also, it is very debatable about whether the changes are good are not.

Any change is always debatable (as this thread has clearly shown). But I did say "most of the new rules," not all the new rules.

[Vondy]

I don't think rules fixes should be in the faq.

 

They should be separated out into a nicely formatted eratta document. It should be available as an insert in later print runs and/or as a download on the website, in which case there should be an insert saying: the eratta can be found at x-url.

 

I don't have the time or the inclination to sift through 100+ pages of commonly given answers for what should be a grand total of 3-4 pages worth of "fixed" material to date -- at most. I shouldn't have to check back on a regular basis, either. The eratta should be updated on a quarterly (?) basis as opposed to whenever, too. I say this because then I know how often to check for said "fixes".

 

Some may suggest -- "boy, people will love you if you parse the rules eratta out from the FAQ for them so have at it!" I most certainly will not. I am not an employee of DOJ. Its their job to provide up to date and user friendly customer resources. Its their product. I wouldn't expect them to update it as often as the FAQ, however. 3-4 times a year at most.

 

Until its parsed out FRED and my House Rule doc are the law of the land.

 

That and... the colors on that FAQ have to change.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Monolith

...the HERO System has changed a great deal over the last 22 years and 99.9% of those changes (both positive and negative to powers) have been good for the game. ...

 

Please cite those changes and WHICH 99.9% were the positive ones - I don't buy that it's over 60%.

 

(just figured I should balance my last couple replies, Monolith, with something more light-hearted)

 

Oh but I can't stop! Changes....hmmm.....I'm not sure. I think the majority of incremental changes have been good in that more than not have been towards the direction of consistency. Otherwise though too much detail and too much "legalese" has been introduced with each succesive rulebook, and too many things which seemed to work well have been tinkered unduly with. More importantly to most though, I'd have to say that on the whole the core rules could and should be much shorter with more open-endedness and interpretation required but with the greatest possible consistency and the clearest underlying design philosophy laid bare so that any issues can be worked out among consenting adults based on that. Something like the 5th edition as we know it now could then be a tremendous supplementary material, with expansion and with "one man's notions" of how the more "bare" core rules should be implemented. We don't need as part of official rules so much information on Transform or Shape Shift, we just need the bases for how powers interact and the essential costing and characteristics for these powers. The positive thing is that then a book like the 5th edition wouldn't have to explain much on the basics and could spend more time on the interpretive aspects and how a particular cost was changed or tweaked, what some of the conflicts regarding how to craft a power/effect have been, etc..

 

As to the companion software, it should just be that one more step modular so that if you want to adopt any of the various extra add-ons you can do so with ease, getting an update for each tidbit (literally 100s or 1000s of extra rules, lims, etc.) you want to use much in the way plug-ins work for audio programs and such.

 

On the positive side, with Sidekick and the hierarchal templates for HD, things are looking sort of like this anyway.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by D-Man

I don't think rules fixes should be in the faq.

I agree. Trying to find anything in the FAQ is a major pain in the butt. New rules should have its own little section on the message boards, IMO.

 

As far as the colors go, have you ever downloaded the PDF? I do not think the newer ones are using the webpage colorschemes.

[zornwil]

This is one chorus we seem to be singing the same tune on, I definitely agree the rules shifts or omissions should be in a single errata doc and not something you have to go through the FAQ (and btw, these are not always "Frequently" asked) to find.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Monolith

The only things which are official are those which DOJ dictates as such. I do not think anything in the Kandris Seal, for example, is considered "official."

 

 

Hero Designer is not the issue. I personally understand that the rules are always changing. My issues with Hero Designer is that Dan refuses to change the software to reflect the rules Steve has put in place.

 

 

I happen to like change. A constantly improving game is one that I want to play. If this game did not change people would still be having the Great Linked Debates every month.

 

I also have no issues over 5 points. I do not even think it is an issue. I see it as nothing more than a rules change that you can either use or not use.

 

But your issue with HD is rooted in the issue that the core rules are changing - but Dan wants to stick with the book and generally its errata as much as possible. This is the philosophical underpinning, what changes are canonical and which are more ephemeral. And how those are identified. So identifying and "fixing" that problem (I'm not convinced it needs to be fixed yet but Agent X raised a valid issue, as evidenced by your many replies Monolith) is paramount to understanding how HD fits into it. Right now I don't blame Dan at all - it is not yet entirely in the FAQ or the errata. So by a "strict constructionist" method it is not a rule yet.

 

I have no issue with "change" in the sense that I would like lots of new rules and even lots of rules change in the supplements. And personally I'd like HD to embrace all those. My point is that all these things are "optional" though, essentially "house rules". I have tons of house rules, some of which are holdovers from previous editions of HERO, others which are just changes. And they do continue to change incrementally. But that's nothing to do with what an orthodox HERO game should be.

 

I realize you nor anyone else cares about the 5 points - it's the principle underlying we disagree on. I feel strongly that the construction presented in USPD is okay, but should be OPTIONAL and not a requirement as it is not in the books AND (now it comes into play) for the trivial effect it has, it should not be considered canonical until such a time as it does make it into the regular rulesbook - like years from now. If it were fixing some great wrong then it would be an understandable errata, but it's not.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by zornwil

But your issue with HD is rooted in the issue that the core rules are changing - but Dan wants to stick with the book and generally its errata as much as possible.

That is only partially right.

 

Dan does not include most of the errata or FAQ material in his updates. Dan's ideology deals with producing software which works with FREd and only FREd (except for his desire to include the stuff which he likes like the material from UMA). In that instance HD is the perfect product for someone like Agent X. I, on the other hand, think HD should evolve to include all the new rules in the FAQ and the errata.

 

This really is not the right place for a HD discussion anway. And besides that, I have already moved on from HD.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Monolith

That is only partially right.

 

Dan does not include most of the errata or FAQ material in his updates. Dan's ideology deals with producing software which works with FREd and only FREd (except for his desire to include the stuff which he likes like the material from UMA). In that instance HD is the perfect product for someone like Agent X. I, on the other hand, think HD should evolve to include all the new rules in the FAQ and the errata.

 

This really is not the right place for a HD discussion anway. And besides that, I have already moved on from HD.

 

Well, my point is, what is "official" in terms of rule - just 5th and the errata? Does the FAQ count? Anyway....so now that you made your last statement, do you mean you moved on from using it (and to what?) or just moved on from that issue? Inquiring minds and all...

[nHammer]

Originally posted by zornwil

This is one chorus we seem to be singing the same tune on, I definitely agree the rules shifts or omissions should be in a single errata doc and not something you have to go through the FAQ (and btw, these are not always "Frequently" asked) to find.

 

Just incase any DOJ folks read this thread, I'd like to add my agreement to this statement.

 

I for one rarely read the FAQ, but it would be nice to be updated on changes to FREd.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by zornwil

Anyway....so now that you made your last statement, do you mean you moved on from using it (and to what?) or just moved on from that issue? Inquiring minds and all...

I just do not use Hero Designer any longer. I have switched over to the Meta-Creator software. It runs quicker on my computers, has, IMO, a superior printing process, and is easier to adapt for our Terran Empire game. HD is good software. It is just not for me any longer.

[Killer Shrike]

Thats too bad Mono. Im testing v2 now and its pretty slick even half built.

[Talon]

See this thread for a stab at a FAQ summary.