ghost-angel Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far If I were Steve... well' date=' Steve would probably do it differently... but if Chris Goodwin were in charge of Hero Games, it would be done with a Power Skill.[/quote'] Interesting. . . . . Smokin' Hot Power Skill, 22- heh. Kind of a cool concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Goodwin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far 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. There were good arguments in favor of keeping Figured. There were also good arguments against. Likewise, there were good arguments in favor of, and against, keeping COM. I'm not trying to speak for Steve, but from observation I think his inclination in the direction of removing them both was bolstered by the arguments we made for removing them. The arguments against removing them, while good, weren't convincing enough in that light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steamteck Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far They'll be changing Damage Shield - oh cool! Probably cool. its pretty bad now. But we don't know what its going to cahnge into. ( run, run ,Its alive!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenn Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Yeah, one hopes the new Damage Shield rules are an improvement. But so far it still sounds like it'll be easier to port the "Weapons Size" changes, the Damage Shield changes and the BOECV changes backwards into 5e than it would be to House Rule Figured Characteristics, Elemental Controls, Comeliness, and a 1d6-1 default Stun Multiplier into 6th. The positive changes are going to only affect specific characters. Many of the negative changes are going to affect EVERY character. Why exactly should I be excited about 6E? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTaylor Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far One of the big selling points for 5th edition was the questionnaire that was put out. List 5 things you want to see changed in Hero rules. Not only did you get a feel that they really cared what the fans had to say, but you wanted to see if they listened to you or if your idea made it into the final cut. That was a good move. The discussion forum idea was pretty good but from the changes being announced I get the feeling it was more symbol than substance. That may be completely unfair, we've not seen the actual product to know... its just that of the things announced, they all were things Steve wanted to do already so there's no indication of customer input here yet. That's what I mean by "oh cool" factor. Maybe you like figured characteristics being peeled off of the main stats, maybe you didn't. But that's not anything that takes people by surprise, particularly: he said he was inclined to do so unless convinced otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted June 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far The discussion forum idea was pretty good but from the changes being announced I get the feeling it was more symbol than substance. That may be completely unfair, we've not seen the actual product to know... its just that of the things announced, they all were things Steve wanted to do already so there's no indication of customer input here yet. That's what I mean by "oh cool" factor. Maybe you like figured characteristics being peeled off of the main stats, maybe you didn't. But that's not anything that takes people by surprise, particularly: he said he was inclined to do so unless convinced otherwise. See my previous post (#824). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far One of the big selling points for 5th edition was the questionnaire that was put out. List 5 things you want to see changed in Hero rules. Not only did you get a feel that they really cared what the fans had to say, but you wanted to see if they listened to you or if your idea made it into the final cut. That was a good move. The discussion forum idea was pretty good but from the changes being announced I get the feeling it was more symbol than substance. That may be completely unfair, we've not seen the actual product to know... its just that of the things announced, they all were things Steve wanted to do already so there's no indication of customer input here yet. That's what I mean by "oh cool" factor. Maybe you like figured characteristics being peeled off of the main stats, maybe you didn't. But that's not anything that takes people by surprise, particularly: he said he was inclined to do so unless convinced otherwise. So did you miss where in the initial post in the Characteristics thread (and its reposting here) Steve said that he was disinclined to decouple CV and DEX/EGO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Goodwin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Interesting. . . . . Smokin' Hot Power Skill, 22- heh. Kind of a cool concept. Based on PRE, naturally. 2 points per +1. Generally, works as a Complementary Skill to Interaction Skills. Can also be used to perform... uhhh... Power Stunts with one's appearance. The exact form of the Power Stunts is best left to the imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Impudite Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Really? You can provide links to the messages where this occurs, right? I take it then you didn't see the ant-COM crowd's agruments in the great COM debate back in the Characteristics thread of the 6th Edition forum? We (the Pro-COM crowd) even offered the honorable compromise of making either the stat or the Talent optional but they spat that right back in our faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steamteck Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far See my previous post (#824). You're absolutely right although its a change I despise. Although the thing I don't remember it ever being discussed as such on the boards. I remember primary and secondary figurers. I sure remember COM but I don't remember CV being discussed at all. I sure would have given my opinion with force. That being said I'll bet when we read the actual rules we'll see a lot of our input and even more in the advanced players guide. I do fear that removing all logical connections will make it harder for introductory players. relatively simple two fisted action heroes will require more decisions and thought seems to me. Once you understand all you'll need it'll be no big problem but I hope some really good guidance is given or we'll get terminators with glass jaws and frustrated newbies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenn Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Or any thread about the "universal" problems of Stun Lotto, Figured Characteristics, or Elemental Controls... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted June 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I take it then you didn't see the ant-COM crowd's agruments in the great COM debate back in the Characteristics thread of the 6th Edition forum? Whose opinions were in line with Steve's own initial thoughts as laid out in the first post on that thread. You can hardly blame the man for doing something he wanted to do anyway, after a whole lot of people agreed with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjcurrie Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far 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. The discussion in this thread has given me a small epiphany about how people view the Hero System and how that colors their reaction to the reported 6E changes. I think of it as "Concept" vs. "Implementation". In my mind, "Concept" refers to the basic philosophical underpinnings of the Hero System. For example: You should be able to build pretty much any character with the rules. all characters are built with points and in general, if you want something, you pay for it. Characteristics start at a base point and are bought up or down from there. Powers are built from basic "effects" that are altered by various modifiers. Players receive points for providing the GM with a list of things that complicate the character's life There are more but I'm sure you get the general idea. On the other hand, "Implementation" is the actual rules -- the nitty, gritty details of how the "Concept" is actually implemented. I think there are basically two camps of people who love the Hero System: "Concept Lovers" who primarily love the concepts behind the system and "Implementation Lovers" who primarily love specific rules and game mechanics. For example, let's look at the idea of decoupling Figured Characteristics. The Concept Lover looks at it and sees that it is primarily a change in implementation and doesn't really affect the concepts of the game, so he has no problems with the change. The Implementation Lover looks at it and, if Figured Characteristics are one of the implementation that he loves, sees something he loves going away and thus, has problems with the change. Basically, Concept Lovers will react poorly to concepts that they love being changed and may be less concerned about actual rules while Implementation Lovers will react poorly to implementation details (that is, rules) they love being changed. Okay, it's probably not really that simple, but I think it sums up why people are reacting as they are. For example, I think I am clearly a Concept Lover, while Lord Mhoram, for example, seems to be clearly an Implementation Lover. Does anyone else see this or am I completely off base? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I take it then you didn't see the ant-COM crowd's agruments in the great COM debate back in the Characteristics thread of the 6th Edition forum? No, I did. In fact I saw both sides of the argument. I take it you missed in the first post in that thread where Steve was already inclined to get rid of COM unless presented with a compelling argument to keep it. Someone deciding to do something they were already predisposed to do in no way indicates that they decided to give into the people arguing that they should do it. It just means that the people who were opposed to the change didn't come up with an argument against it that he found compelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far a normals game usually has sectional armor in a super hero game around a 60 active points 15 resistant with 25 total is an average a 4d6 ka will do zero body and 3 stun on average now while before is did zero body before you had a chance to do some stun(sometimes horrific amounts) the thing is that by allowing all def vs stun and going to a 1d3 stun multiplier makes KA's next to useless in a supers game Had it just been going to 1d3 for stun and only resistant def vs the stun I would be all for it BUT going for both ruins KA's 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Goodwin Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I take it then you didn't see the ant-COM crowd's agruments in the great COM debate back in the Characteristics thread of the 6th Edition forum? I did, yes. I was one of the defenders of COM. You stated that people made "demands". Post links to messages where anyone "demanded" the removal of COM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steamteck Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far No, I did. In fact I saw both sides of the argument. I take it you missed in the first post in that thread where Steve was already inclined to get rid of COM unless presented with a compelling argument to keep it. Someone deciding to do something they were already predisposed to do in no way indicates that they decided to give into the people arguing that they should do it. It just means that the people who were opposed to the change didn't come up with an argument against it that he found compelling. Actually I think he meant the tone of the discussion not the result. you still might disagree but that's how I interpreted his comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenn Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far No, I did. In fact I saw both sides of the argument. I take it you missed in the first post in that thread where Steve was already inclined to get rid of COM unless presented with a compelling argument to keep it. Someone deciding to do something they were already predisposed to do in no way indicates that they decided to give into the people arguing that they should do it. It just means that the people who were opposed to the change didn't come up with an argument against it that he found compelling. We saw it. And somehow "Several people have been using it and finding it a useful tool" wasn't compelling. I don't like Find Weakness; I discourage my players from using it. But I'm against it's removal from the rules because I know there are people who do use it and don't have my issues with it. If something is present, and one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to use it. Removing things because some people misuse them or don't use them is unfair to the people who've been using them happily for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far We saw it. And somehow "Several people have been using it and finding it a useful tool" wasn't compelling. I don't like Find Weakness; I discourage my players from using it. But I'm against it's removal from the rules because I know there are people who do use it and don't have my issues with it. If something is present, and one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to use it. Removing things because some people misuse them or don't use them is unfair to the people who've been using them happily for a long time. My understanding from what Steve has posted is that he didn't get rid of Com because people don't use it. He got rid of Com as a Characteristic because he felt that the limited effect in the rules that it had on gameplay was better modeled as a Talent than as a Characteristic. And personally, that is one of the decisions of his that I don't agree with. I would've preferred to keep Com. And for that matter I don't think he got rid of Find Weakness because he thought it was being abused. I think he got rid of it because he thought it was both broken and redundant. Again, not a decision that I agree with. I like Find Weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Impudite Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Actually I think he meant the tone of the discussion not the result. you still might disagree but that's how I interpreted his comment. what steamteck said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSword Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Actually I think he meant the tone of the discussion not the result. you still might disagree but that's how I interpreted his comment. The tone of the discussion was that there was plenty of vitriol on both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Impudite Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far We saw it. And somehow "Several people have been using it and finding it a useful tool" wasn't compelling. I don't like Find Weakness; I discourage my players from using it. But I'm against it's removal from the rules because I know there are people who do use it and don't have my issues with it. If something is present, and one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to use it. Removing things because some people misuse them or don't use them is unfair to the people who've been using them happily for a long time. Quoted for truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Impudite Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far The tone of the discussion was that there was plenty of vitriol on both sides. Maybe there was, but as I previously stated, we offered a reasonable compromise only to have it spat back in our faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Actually I think he meant the tone of the discussion not the result. you still might disagree but that's how I interpreted his comment. Well, Steve didn't have anything to do with the discussion, other than having provided a starting point. And my recollection of the debate was that it got heated on both sides. As tends to be the case when people feel strongly about something. And all I was intending to reply to was the statement that Steve "gave them their way". Doing what you were inclined to do anyway isn't giving anyone their way. Regardless of how well or poorly the people that agree with you acted during the discussion. It is just doing what you were planning on doing. Had he changed his mind it could be more accurately say that he gave the people who wanted to keep Com their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Gillen Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far No, I did. In fact I saw both sides of the argument. I take it you missed in the first post in that thread where Steve was already inclined to get rid of COM unless presented with a compelling argument to keep it. Someone deciding to do something they were already predisposed to do in no way indicates that they decided to give into the people arguing that they should do it. It just means that the people who were opposed to the change didn't come up with an argument against it that he found compelling. This board needs a "hammering head against a wall" emoticon. JG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.