6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[Greywind]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't particularly see myself changing up, but it is more of a financial decision than anything else.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

One of the major themes of the 6th edition discussions was to make the game less complicated and smaller in rules' date=' more sleek and easier to use. I suspect that decoupling figured characteristics made it more complicated and harder to build characters. Instead of having 8 characteristics you have to figure out baselines for, now you have 14 (18 if you add the Combat Values). Instead of natural progressions and connections between stats, each one is completely separated. That may or may not be a good thing - I can see advantages and disadvantages - but it does make things more complicated and building characters a bit more challenging. And thus daunting to new players. If the goal was to make the game easier for newcomers to play, this seems counterproductive.[/quote']

 

Except that in 5e and before there weren't just 8 characteristics you had to buy. There were 14. And 6 of them were moving targets whose bases would change if the other 8 changed. In 6e there will be 17 in total, but you won't have the added complexity of some of them changing depending on the value of the other ones. Much less complex. I've never understood why people claim that decoupling make chargen more complex. It seems pretty straightforward that "buy these things from a set base up to the values you want" is less complex than "buy these things, some of which have a set base and some of which have a base that varies depending on how high you've purchased other things".

 

And while some of the people posting in the 6e discussions were of the opinion that reducing complexity should be the driving force behind 6e I am unaware of Steve (or anyone else at Hero) claiming that as an actual driving force. It certainly isn't mentioned in Steve's "Why We're Creating The 6th Edition" thread from the 6e forums.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

In 5e, if you liked COM, it was there and you could use it. If you didn't, it was easily removed. 6e removes that tool from the toolbox.

 

That's my tale too. I wonder what else as removed. I despised find weakness but am actually sorry to see it go because quite a few people really liked it.

No problems for me. I just didn't use it in my games.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think Steve Long has made a PR mistake by not including a wow factor in the sneak preview: something that makes people go oh cool' date='[/i'] now that's worth getting it for! What he's given us so far has been pretty much controversial or meaningless, which has resulted in controversy and people prematurely saying "this sucks I'm not buying it!!!"

 

I'm not saying I'd do any better, I'm terrible with marketing. I'm just pretty good with analysis.

 

I suppose that depends on your POV. Most of the things announced so far make me go "oh cool!".

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

does anyone realistically think the hundreds of pages reiterating the same arguments would have changed the final result?

 

Aside from the rather uncomplimentary way you put that. I disagree about the same arguments over and over again also. There was lots of that but there was lots of new insight everyone got into their positions Yes, I do think they could have changed the final result or it was all a sham. If I think Steve was sincere and I do, of course they could have changed things.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That problem can also be fix without getting rid of the Comeliness characteristic. I' date=' for one, will be doing as much with my new house rules.[/quote']

 

I don't care either way, personally.

 

Look at it this way: You can fix this with YOUR house rule. Steve is fixing this with HIS house rule. Fifth Edition is basically Steve's House Rules MINUS The Stuff They Wouldn't Let Him Put In. Fourth Edition is basically a consolidation of the original however many rules books, slightly tweeked around to bring all the genre rules under one umbrella.

 

Most of us have 4th and 5th Editions. Most of us already house rule what we like between those two editions. 6th Will probably provide more of the same, or could easily be left on the store shelf.

 

Everyone, to one extent or another, rolls their own with Hero, so why cry over rules changes that can be ignored?

[nexus]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

That's my tale too. I wonder what else as removed. I despised find weakness but am actually sorry to see it go because quite a few people really liked it.

No problems for me. I just didn't use it in my games.

 

One of the reasons I got into Hero was the modular feel to it. You could modify other gams but it took work and some of the collapsed like a house of card if you altered the smallest thing. Hero didn't have the problem and, unlike GURPS, it didn't tell me how my games had to be or like BESM get flexibility mixed up with handwavium powered rules.

 

In some ways it feel like that flexibility is being choked off and not by 6th entirely. Its as if the mood has changed and there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think Steve Long has made a PR mistake by not including a wow factor in the sneak preview: something that makes people go oh cool' date='[/i'] now that's worth getting it for!

 

I dunno... decoupled Figured Characteristics and just knowing that Adding Damage has been rewritten is - in and of itself - a massive Oh cool!! factor for me.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I suppose that depends on your POV. Most of the things announced so far make me go "oh cool!".

 

 

There you go one man's "wow!" is another man's hell. I envy you. I've yet to get even a little wow, at best a "that's not bad"

 

I'm still hoping for some hidden gems I can mine ( PD/ED guidelines and chart for objects would be "oh cool!" for example.)

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Its as if the mood has changed and there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things.

...and certain individuals absolutely demanding that their way be the "objectively right way." Sadly, Mr. Long has chosen to give them their way. Oh well...

[aylwin13]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't particularly see myself changing up' date=' but it is more of a financial decision than anything else.[/quote']

This is where I am, and have been since Steve announced a 6th Ed. I'm too old and set in my ways to start learning a "new" (yes, I know it's a revision of the HERO system, but that is still new, and will require relearning things; I'm still trying to learn parts of 5ER ) system. 5ER works just fine for our group.

 

Mostly, though, it all comes down to the money. I have a shelf full of 5ER books (some of which I haven't read yet), and there are a bunch of others that I still want to buy. I'm not going to spend $70-80 on new rule books, when the one I have does the job just fine. I'm not the single, no-bills, tons of extra money guy I was 25 years ago. I don't buy the new version of something just because it's released. I'm sure there will be enemy and source- books that I'll buy to use with 5ER, but I won't be moving on to 6E.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Aside from the rather uncomplimentary way you put that. I disagree about the same arguments over and over again also. There was lots of that but there was lots of new insight everyone got into their positions Yes' date=' I do think they could have changed the final result or it was all a sham. If I think Steve was sincere and I do, of course they could have changed things.[/quote']

 

I think Steve was sincere. I think he was very sincere when he said he'd be very unlikely to change some things. I thought he was pretty up front about it. He probably didn't see merit in many of the arguments against changes, because at the end of the day, his changes ended up working out mechanically similar, and they -- at least in his point of view -- added some benefit.

 

If the mechanics of something give the same end result, then all we are arguing over is the aesthetics of the mechanics. I think that's what the bulk of the arguments of this thread have been. And that's why they'll never end, because they're for the most part subjective.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

In some ways it feel like that flexibility is being choked off and not by 6th entirely. Its as if the mood has changed and there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things.

 

Humm.. interesting.

 

We still get 3-4+ options for every How Do I question here on the boards. People are always offering up ways of creating various House Rules or manipulating Core Rules to get specfic effects in a given game.

 

This is a tanget worth exploring, what caused that shift in perception and/or mood? At least in your eyes.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Steve specifically stated that the result will be "simpler," so waiting would seem to be prudent.

 

That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach.

 

On the other hand, some things Steve considers "simple" are things I don't.

 

In principle I'm inclined to agree with, but I've noticed that what things are called seems to make a real difference to a lot of people in the HEROphile community.

 

I don't like the change, particularly, but I can see why he made it. The change may also come with a loosening up of the whole "If a Disadvantage doesn't kill, maim, render your character insane, or useless, then it's not a disadvantage" thing. Because, frankly, some GMs take that whole aspect of Disads too far.

 

If the goal is to make Disads be a reward for adding color to your character and fleshing it out with real background detail that has a game impact, and to get away from the whole problem of having to roll for frequency for the collective DNPCs, Hunteds, Rivals, etc. for an entire team of characters, and wedge all of that into the plot, then using a more moderate term, like "Complications" makes sense.

[Greywind]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

In some ways it feel like that flexibility is being choked off and not by 6th entirely. Its as if the mood has changed and there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things.

My builds are always correct. For my game. Doesn't mean I won't ask for input and end up with upwards of 6 different possibilities for it.

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I agree with you on this

Killing attacks have just been overly NERFED

 

going with all def protects vs stun works

going with 1d3 for a stun multiplier but only vs resistant def works

 

using both really NERFS Killing attacks

 

That's because in a game where people are normals, your max resistant defense is like 5-6. Load a gun up with AP bullets and fire away. What's your Con Score? 13-15? If you're a huge bear of a man, 18? Roll that 2d6 RKA. See whether or not you're stunned. You still have a pretty good chance to be.

 

In super powered games, however, the wheel turns. It's harder to knock you out, and the range is such that it's commensurate with the high average damage of EB at the high end. Really, guys. I've never seen anyone roll a 72 on 12d6, and I've been playing Champions a long time.

 

Remember the Ultimate Super Mage playtest. 4d6 RKA was more broken than almost anything else they could come up with because of the stun multiplier. This is fine.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Welcome to Gaming Pedantry. Ain't it fun.

 

 

(note: I've probably been guilty of it at least once myself....)

 

 

Me too! Me too!

 

What? You're looking at me like that's a bad thing!

[BlackSword]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

My daughter's group tried 4th edition d&d bought all the books and ended up asking me . What the heck was going on with them. it took them days to make up characters becuase they had to right to progress later as they wanted them and the book was organized so differently than they were used to. When they did figure it out and played after two sessions' date=' My daughter came in picked up my FRED book. They all made HERO characters and now have bought the HERO books and play that instead. Absolutely true story.[/quote']

We picked up the books, made characters in about or under an hour, played for several hours and had a fun time. Absolutely true story.

 

I did note two requirements for our enjoyment, giving it a fair shake and it fitting the game style we were going for. If it didn't fit the game style your daughter and her friends were going for then I am glad they were able to find an alternative system that works for them. However my main thrust was that your story of being 'burned' by D&D 4E was not a universal experience.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

this is entirely subjective but I find "complications" really annoying it seems like PC or political spin talk.

 

Template works for me

 

Complication wouldn't have been my choice either.

 

Based on various brief comments Steve has made here and there, I think his goal with this change was:

 

• Remove any confusion caused by the fact that Disadvantages were not the opposite of Advantages.
  
• Give the game element formerly known as Disadvantages a name that more accurately described its role in the game.
  

Personally, I would have chosen Hook or Story Hook. But Steve didn't. And it's just a name so I'll get used to using the new one. But I definitely still expect to hear "Disadvantages" used for years -- just like there are people who don't change when a sports stadium or arena changes its name because of corporate naming rights.

 

I do think Complications is slightly better than Disadvantages as term to describe the role this game element plays. Thinks like Hunteds, DNPC, and Psychological Complications are things that complicate the life of the character.

 

The change of "Psychological, Physical, and Social Limitations" to "Psychological, Physical, and Social Complications" (although Psychological is the only one specifically mentioned -- but I'd amazed if the other two were not there) removes potential confusion between something named Limitation that is not part of the set of game elements known as Limitations.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I find it interesting all the "fixes" people are working up to adjust the new when they haven't even seen how it will work out yet.

 

 

All the fixes I've suggested are stuff I've suggested before when we were...discussing...it. I have no idea how the talent will be built exactly, but all that really matters is that you will be able to do mechanically after 6e what you could do mechanically before.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't know what Steve did or how he built the Talent, but if I were Steve I'd model it almost the exact same way. I might even put in a note that the Striking Appearance Roll can add none, some or all of the Bonus bought for the Talent based on the success of the roll - with possible Situational Bonses for extremely good rolls (or extremely bad rolls).

 

So you know, it could be nothing more than a cosmetic change of where you write it down on the sheet. Sure I'll miss going "I have a Comliness score of 18, versus his 14. . . " But. meh.

 

If I were Steve... well, Steve would probably do it differently... but if Chris Goodwin were in charge of Hero Games, it would be done with a Power Skill.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

...and certain individuals absolutely demanding that their way be the "objectively right way." Sadly' date=' Mr. Long has chosen to give them their way. Oh well...[/quote']

 

On this point I have to respectfully disagree. To the extent that there will be an "objectively right way" to model something in HERO, it's going to be Steve Long's way. He bought the company, he's the Line Developer, so it's his right to make those decisions. To the extent he agrees with other people's input on those decisions, they "have their way." If he doesn't they're outta luck.

 

There is one thing I feel the need to say, though. Throughout the Fifth Edition rulebook and subsequent FAQ Steve Long has repeatedly stressed that the default rules can and should be changed by individual GMs to suit their group's preferences. Many rules have explicit "subject to GM's approval" clauses to allow for doing things differently. The rulebook even included a chapter of suggestions and guidelines for how to change the system.

 

For 6E we already know that a number of "toolkitting" suggestions about changing elements of the game will be included. Steve has said the Advanced Players Guide will include many suggestions and options that came up during the 6E forum discussions, which he decided didn't fit with the core rules but were too cool not to provide as options. These are not the actions of a game designer who wants to impose a "one true way" to play the game -- they're the actions of someone who has to make decisions about what the system's defaults should be, and understandably uses his own judgement; but wants to make the potential play experience as broad and flexible as possible.

 

One more thing, regarding the position expressed by some here that Steve Long had made up his mind about rules changes before the discussion in the 6E forums had even begun. I will now quote from Steve's first post on the Characteristics thread in that forum, in which he laid out his initial thoughts:

 

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

 

Steve’s Thoughts: My current thinking is that it should not [emphasis mine], though I haven’t completely abandoned the idea. There are definitely some arguments to be made in favor of this. First, logically there’s no real correlation between being nimble, agile, or deft, and being accurate with attacks and weapons. “Realistically,” accuracy is more a matter of training than anything, though natural aptitude can factor in. Second, making CV a Characteristic would allow characters to affect it with Adjustment Powers and the like. This would make building many powers and abilities easier in some ways. Third, decoupling CV would be consistent with decoupling Figureds in general, and Leaping from STR.

 

However, splitting off CV also poses some problems. It would mean adding one (or possibly two) Characteristics to the character sheet, and generally that seems undesireable to me. Second, by “gaming logic” dexterity and accuracy go together pretty well. Third, it would increase the percentage of their starting points that characters spend on Characteristics. Fourth, unless priced expensively (say, 5-8 points per +1 CV), doing this could easily lead to “CV inflation” in many games. Fifth, doing this might require changing the cost structure of Combat Skill Levels.

 

From this passage it's clear that Steve was aware of the potential drawbacks to making this change, and was initially disinclined to do so. Since he has since obviously reversed his position, the most logical conclusion to be drawn is that the subsequent discussion changed his mind.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I don't like the change, particularly, but I can see why he made it. The change may also come with a loosening up of the whole "If a Disadvantage doesn't kill, maim, render your character insane, or useless, then it's not a disadvantage" thing. Because, frankly, some GMs take that whole aspect of Disads too far.

 

If the goal is to make Disads be a reward for adding color to your character and fleshing it out with real background detail that has a game impact, and to get away from the whole problem of having to roll for frequency for the collective DNPCs, Hunteds, Rivals, etc. for an entire team of characters, and wedge all of that into the plot, then using a more moderate term, like "Complications" makes sense.

 

I'm pretty sure the second paragraph is exactly the goal.

 

I do expect that there'll be a statement like "A Complication that doesn't complicate the life of the character is not a Complication". But probably it will be worded better.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

...and certain individuals absolutely demanding that their way be the "objectively right way." Sadly' date=' Mr. Long has chosen to give them their way. Oh well...[/quote']

 

Really?

 

You can provide links to the messages where this occurs, right?

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

There you go one man's "wow!" is another man's hell. I envy you. I've yet to get even a little wow, at best a "that's not bad"

 

I'm still hoping for some hidden gems I can mine ( PD/ED guidelines and chart for objects would be "oh cool!" for example.)

 

 

They'll be changing Damage Shield - oh cool!