6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Maybe there was' date=' but as I previously stated, we offered a reasonable compromise only to have it spat back in our faces.[/quote']

 

Even if it was, Steve isn't the one who did the spitting. He didn't even participate in the discussions. He just gave them a starting point.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

This board needs a "hammering head against a wall" emoticon.

 

JG

 

Not quite the same, but we do have this one:

 

 

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Steve actually made all the changes because he hates the Hero System and hopes they do bad enough this season that he can sell them to another city for a tidy profit.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I never said Mr. Long was involved in the discussions. Nor did I say he did the "spitting."

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

• 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
  

 

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?

 

For my sake, you nailed it on the head. The concepts behind Hero are there, and in '81 they were revolutionary, but those things you list could apply mostly to Fuzion, M&M or Gurps. I don't want to play those systems, even though they have the same/similar concepts. I want the particular implementation of them that Hero (pre 6th) has.

 

I remember back on the Hero mailing list when the questionaire about 5th came out, and one of the questions was about how a character was built - the specific mechanics. Most people said they didn't really care about that - whereas I was "That is one of the most important things". Then came Fuzion, and those that said "How a character is built doesn't matter" got upset, and I though - this is what you get you when you say how something is built doesn't matter.

 

6E is a lesser form of Fuzion for me - it is changing things I think are core to the game. I didn't play Fuzion - I read it and could tell it wasn't for me - although I stole some stuff for my games (the regen adders that ended up in 5th). I'm feeling the same way about 6th - With the changes being made, I know I will not like it as much as earlier editions, and I will play those earlier editions, but I will likely buy the character building book for things to steal (like the new KA stun mult).

 

So my game will likely be a 5th ed game with pieces from 4th, 3rd and 6th.

 

And I'm okay with that (and yes, that took a while - I had part (a small part but a part) of my self identity as a "Hero gamer" - it took a while to excise that ).

 

I feel bad that a game I really liked is no longer being supported, but I hold no ill will to those that changed it, or those that like it. I just won't be buying the books.

[Tasha]

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.

 

Actually that's a feeling that seeps in when I frequent these boards too much. I start to feel boxed in by the "orthodoxy" in how stuff "should" be run or written up. That's why I tend to take multiple month breaks from these boards. It keeps my perspective fresh and uncluttered. YMMV

 

Tasha

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I never said Mr. Long was involved in the discussions. Nor did I say he did the "spitting."

 

Ah, cool. It seemed to me that you were. Probably just me misinterpreting.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Very well, then.

[James Gillen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Not quite the same, but we do have this one:

 

 

 

That was the first thing I noticed, but "hammering your head against a wall" is the main way The Great COM Debate comes off to me now.

 

In terms of Steve's explanation, PRE is a subject. An Interaction Skill is a verb. COM (or Appearance Talent), at best, is a modifier. And thus, not a Characteristic.

 

JG

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

 

To be clear, I think the 6e forums were valuable, and there were a number of interesting and useful arguments raised. However, by the time they closed, I think they had pretty much run their course. If Steve had followed up with a thread starting off "I still think I am going to decouple Figured Characteristics and remove Comeliness", I doubt the result would have been a flood of new insights rather than a flood of repeated arguments.

 

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

 

If it were only rDEF vs the STUN, I expect pretty much everyone would have bought up rDEF to 150% to 200% the average BOD roll, such that "killing attacks" remain useless for actually KILLING.

 

I agree that killing attacks will be virtually useless in a typical four colour Supers game. Resistant Defenses will be sufficient, in most cases, to block the BOD done. But I consider this the right result. Killing attacks, IMO, should be directed at KILLING, not stunning or knocking out, the target. In a four colour game, it is counter-genre to have characters killed routinely, so killing attacks (ie attacks which will KILL, not KO) are not appropriate.

 

If I want them to be useful, because I want higher lethality, then the easy way to do that is to restrict resistant defenses to the point that those killing attacks will carry a real threat of killing the target.

 

Somewhere along the line, killing attacks became "laying some STUN on the guy with big defenses" attacks instead of "KILLING attacks". The more I look at the result, the more I find myself believing this is a positive change. I still believe there were other alternatives, perhaps better alternatives. But I find I like the idea of killing attacks being used to kill, not to have a chance of a fast knockout.

 

Maybe there was' date=' but as I previously stated, we offered a reasonable compromise only to have it spat back in our faces.[/quote']

 

I suppose those who liked the COM characteristic are horrifically ungrateful not to thank you profusely for your generous offer to permit us to continue its use . However, being the ungrateful wretch that I am, I don't see how "maybe COM could stay as an optional rule" is any more a "reasonable compromise" than "maybe we could add a statement that those who don't like COM should ignore it in their games". Both say "use my rule, but grant permission to the Great Unwashed who don't like it to do things differently".

[Kenn]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Really?

 

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

 

It's not a link, but I believe that there are multiple 5e books that indicate that

 

20 Become a 10 Ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent

 

is okay, but

 

15 I am a 10 ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent, Inherent, Always On

 

is not okay.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Steve actually made all the changes because he hates the Hero System and hopes they do bad enough this season that he can sell them to another city for a tidy profit.

 

Why do you hate America?

 

Edit: Woohoo, post #3000! I want to thank Baby Jesus, my agent, my parents, and the 6e forums! Love you all! Mwah!

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Steve actually made all the changes because he hates the Hero System and hopes they do bad enough this season that he can sell them to another city for a tidy profit.

 

"Most of these guys never had a prime"

"This one's dead"

"Well, cross him off then!"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Why do you hate America?

 

Don't get me started

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It's not a link, but I believe that there are multiple 5e books that indicate that

 

20 Become a 10 Ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent

 

is okay, but

 

15 I am a 10 ft. Giant: Growth, 2 levels, @ 0 END cost, Persistent, Inherent, Always On

 

is not okay.

 

And Steve - the guy who wrote the rules - will be FIRST IN LINE to tell you "Go ahead and do what you want. It's your game."

[Tasha]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

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.

 

4th edition D&D is a great combat game. It is a ton of fun taken in that context. Unfortunately, they removed so many skills the RP part of the game is kind of lacking and requires too much handwaving to get the kind of game play that 3.x gave you.

 

So our group played it for awhile, and converted to Hero for the better skill system.

 

Funny thing is that I remember the announcement of 4th edition and that community was just as up in arms about the rumored changes as this community is with Hero 6.

 

In all honesty, I think that I am going to be ambivalent to most changes and will find that those changes will grow on me over time. My partner, the Hero Newbie, finds the changes quite exciting and is looking forward to the new edition. I am sure that there will be one or two changes that I will totally hate (ie the KA changes), but it is hard to satisfy all of a fanbase with any change to an accepted system. People hate change and are frightened by it. That's what is generating much of the negativity in threads like this.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I suppose those who liked the COM characteristic are horrifically ungrateful not to thank you profusely for your generous offer to permit us to continue its use .

Hugh,

 

I said we (the Pro-COM crowd) offered a compromise (to the anti-COM crowd) and they spat it back in our faces. BTW, read my sig.

[Kenn]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

And Steve - the guy who wrote the rules - will be FIRST IN LINE to tell you "Go ahead and do what you want. It's your game."

 

Fine, and I do. But the fact that I have to make a conscious decision to ignore a printed rule reflects the whole "there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things". He might be the first to tell me to ignore printed rule, but I wouldn't have to ignore it if he hadn't added it.

[schir1964]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Maybe there was' date=' but as I previously stated, we offered a reasonable compromise only to have it spat back in our faces.[/quote']

Who spat in your face?

 

Please provide a link or quote.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Xotl]

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']

 

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.

 

You're being a colossal dramallama. "Spat back in our faces"? Come on.

 

There was a debate, one of many in the 6th ed forums, where there were two sides. I and others argued for one, you and others argued for another. Occasionally heated words were said by both sides, and the debate certainly was passionate, but I thought it was handled for the most part in the respectful, mature, and ridiculously over-analyzed manner these forums are known for. I grew to respect certain people, opponents of what I favoured, because of that thread. You're making it sound like your opponents were a pack of narrow-minded dogmatics while you wielded the banner of light and truth rather than it simply being a situation where, *gasp*, people disagreed with you.

[rjcurrie]

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.

 

Actually, I would counter that while Steve mentioned changing the name of Elemental Controls (and suggested Unified Power as a possibility) and asked about making changes to it, I think the idea of replacing the Framework altogether with a Limitation was something that came out of discussions on the boards.

 

I asked Steve last night about whether he found anything really interesting in the 6E forums and he replied, "Rod - oh, yeah, absolutely! There was plenty of dross, but there were also some real gems, including a couple of ideas that were so good they practically took my breath away." Does that sound like someone who treated those threads as more symbol than substance?

 

When I asked if he was pleased with 6E turned out, he said "Rod -- yes, I am absolutely happy with how 6E turned out. It was a lot of hard work, and there were a lot of tough, even agonizing, decisions to make, but ultimately I think 6E is the best version of HERO yet." Again, this doesn't sound like someone with his mind made up ahead of time.

 

The other thing to remember is that these reveals were not a marketing release, they were answers to questions from people in the chat. That is why they primarily cover areas that Steve had mentioned in the initial posts of the 6E forum -- it's what people were asking about. That's why I posted the interesting tidbits -- to give a clearer idea of what the chat was like.

 

In many ways, it was a guy who was just completing one of the biggest projects of his life chatting with some friends and dropping some hints about the project. He clearly is saving some things for later reveals -- heck, maybe not even until the books themselves come out and also seems to feel that some ideas are a little too big to really discuss in a chat. Perhaps once he has more free time, he will share some of these more complex (but not necessarily complicated) changes on the boards.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Fine' date=' and I do. But the fact that I have to make a conscious decision to ignore a printed rule reflects the whole "there's more focus on the correct build and the objectively right way to model things". He might be the first to tell me to ignore printed rule, but I wouldn't have to ignore it if he hadn't added it.[/quote']

 

He also printed a Rule in the book that says you can change the Rules.

 

 

I'd say you're doing an exemplary job of following the rules.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'll tell you what, I don't think the great COM debate matters at all. What matters to me is this:

 

I want to create a good looking character whose looks are important to the way I'm going to play the character, so I want them to have some in-game effect. Can I build that?

 

I want to create a great looking character who tends to be underestimated because of her looks, so she is rarely taken seriously, which can be a right pain, but it is sometimes useful. Can I build that?

 

I want to create a plain looking character with a really commanding voice. Can I build that?

 

I want to build a character who is scarred and, frankly, scary. People avoid him but he makes them uneasy to the point where they will do what he asks just to get rid of him. Can I build that?

 

I want to build a character who is good looking but, despite that, no one seems to be bothered about his looks - it has no real in-game effect. Can I build that?

 

...and so on.

 

So long as there is a reasonably straightforward 'yes', I don't care. So long as there is a mechanism allowing me to realise my concept, cool.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

You Conceptualist, You!!!

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I like 'objectively right' as an idea, but I'm not stupid enough to think there's any such thing.