6E Rules changes confirmed so far

[James Gillen]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Here's my prediction: Ten years from now, when Comeliness hasn't been an official part of the Hero system for a decade, Hero players are still going to be using numbers to describe their characters' attractiveness.

 

GM: "How much Striking Appearance did you buy for Miss Justice?"

 

Player: "I paid 4 Points, so she has an 18 COM."

 

The numbers may mutate to Olympic-style 1.0 - 10 as guys do rating women ("Man, Angelina Jolie's an 11!"), but relative numerical ratings aren't going to go away. It's a shorthand people understand naturally.

 

Yeah, and now you'll pay points for the equivalent of 18 COM and have it actually MEAN something in game terms.

 

JG

[CTaylor]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

He mentioned the Sixth Edition Technical Advisory Committee in chat who, apparently, are a group of people who live outside of Steve's head. He's been pretty cagey on exactly who they are, though.

 

I think we can guess who some are based on comments on this board.

 

Regarding hit locations: many creatures in my fantasy Hero game have no locations, such as blobs of goo, demons, etc. Hit them anywhere, its the same. No hit location chart for them even though its used in most other places in the game.

I'm honestly not sure what you thought a compromise would achieve.

 

Really Chris? You honestly aren't able to figure out the purpose of a compromise?

 

Shouldn't gunshots in Old West and WW II games be lethal?

 

Sure, and that's my point: they won't hurt as much now because you get your PD against the stun. They're less problematic than they used to be in many genres, using this new rule change.

 

Yeah, and now you'll pay points for the equivalent of 18 COM and have it actually MEAN something in game terms.

 

I feel sorry for people who played in games like that with such an uncreative GM and poor role playing by the players.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Say' date=' has anyone asked, or Steve commented on, whether Regen will change in 6e? All I've seen on the boards is the comment that Healing is changing, but he doesn't want to explain how yet.[/quote']

 

I haven't heard anything.

[ajackson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Really Chris? You honestly aren't able to figure out the purpose of a compromise?

Compromises can have purposes, but only if it's the right compromise. While I was in favor of removing Com, Com as an optional characteristic is worse than Com as a standard characteristic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Regarding hit locations: many creatures in my fantasy Hero game have no locations' date=' such as blobs of goo, demons, etc. Hit them anywhere, its the same. No hit location chart for them even though its used in most other places in the game.[/quote']

 

Presumably, that automaton power will appear somewhere and be perfectly usable in this regard.

 

Sure' date=' and that's my point: they won't hurt as much now because you get your PD against the stun. They're [i']less[/i] problematic than they used to be in many genres, using this new rule change.

 

To me, it's the BOD damage that should be scary, not the STUN damage. I don't really care how much STUN I just lost if I took 7 BOD and one more hit could kill me, or leave me at negative BOD which will make a Paramedic roll less than likely to succeed in the time I have left.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think we can guess who some are based on comments on this board.

 

Let me guess. You're now going to proceed to name everyone who has spoken in favor of 6e. After all, we can't possibly like it unless we were part of the group that created it, right?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I think we can guess who some are based on comments on this board.

 

Let me guess. You're now going to proceed to name everyone who has spoken in favor of 6e. After all' date=' we can't possibly like it unless we were part of the group that created it, right?[/quote']

 

Clearly you're one of *them*!

 

Rod turned me into a newt!!!

 

I got better...

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Clearly you're one of *them*!

 

Rod turned me into a newt!!!

 

I got better...

 

Now, would I do that to a fellow Canadian?

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

yes but in the case of Regen and Instant Change these where broken for no other reason than vanity

 

while I did not like that shape shift in effect doubled in price it did come in line with Images so in that case I can see it was the right thing to do

 

 

 

All games have things that are broken. All new editions break new things. It's the circle of life.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Really Chris? You honestly aren't able to figure out the purpose of a compromise?

 

The purpose of a compromise, sure. The purpose of a compromise in this particular situation, no idea.

 

Who did the pro-COM folk think they were offering a compromise to, or who would accept, or what the result of it would be? The anti's could have said "Okay, you're right, we give up," and the result would probably have been the same. Maybe, maybe not.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Exactly!

 

Someone Rep aj for this, apparently I've hit him too recently.

 

I got him.

 

Use killing attacks to kill? That's just crazy talk!

[lemming]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm not so sure. I still run into lots of people who think there is a -1 on your to-hit roll for making a half move and that rule disappeared 20 years ago.

 

I know a few people who house ruled it back.

 

I still used -1/3" but I don't inflict it on Con games, so I guess that's gone. drat

[lemming]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Now' date=' would I do that to a fellow Canadian? [/quote']

Well, he is from Edmonton.

[lemming]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

yes but in the case of Regen and Instant Change these where broken for no other reason than vanity

 

While I hated the change to Regen & Instant Change, I understood why. I don't think vanity had anything to do with it. And I just kept using the old version.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

yes but in the case of Regen and Instant Change these where broken for no other reason than vanity

 

while I did not like that shape shift in effect doubled in price it did come in line with Images so in that case I can see it was the right thing to do

 

Because he felt they were minor powers that were better done as builds of other powers? That's vain?

 

When you're adding a Power like Healing and there's a Power for Regeneration, doesn't it make sense to combine them? Did he do a good job of it? No. Did he do it out of vanity? I don't think so.

 

And as for Instant Change, did we really need a separate power that lets you change clothes? Maybe when it was just a superhero game, but that isn't the Hero System anymore. Again, was it good build? Maybe not. But I still don't see it as vanity.

[Beast]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

it would be cool

 

they would also need to make so you could scale for 25-28mm figs

and 3",6" and 12" action figures

 

I have been doing a bit of modding 6" action figures

would love to play in a game that used them

 

 

 

A fun supplement for 6e might be "Hex HERO." A bunch of rules for using miniatures and scenery, plus a lot of photocopyable paper cut out scenery. HERO's answer to Games Workshop: here's model glue in yer eye, GW.

 

I'm thinking 4 parts HERO rules, 1 part Car Wars (remember that game? it had paper / cardboard cut-outs) and some GW style scenery and modeling rules. Cars are this big and have this Def and Body. Walls are like this, here's how to do a hole in the wall, etc. Pre-printed is good here. Advice on how to physically build a paper model is good too.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Well' date=' he is from [i']Edmonton[/i].

 

Good point.

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

No not really just that it replaced ECs and is supposedly better and more versatile so I may be completely off.

The idea is you could link up all the ingredients in proportion to recouple characteristics but it just pretty wild speculation mixed with wishful thinking. we don't know yet. I suspect we will have to wait for the rules to get the straight poop.

 

As I said oh so many pages ago, Steve confirmed that Unified Power can be used for recoupling CHAR and that it's not limited to END-based powers.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Repeatedly. And with a fair amount of hostility. "No one uses COM so it must GO!" was the mantra' date=' no matter how many of us pointed out that we, in fact, [i']did[/i] use COM.

 

Huh. I never saw anyone post that no one uses COM. I saw people post that there is almost no in the rules uses for COM, but that is an entirely different matter.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Say, has anyone asked, or Steve commented on, whether Regen will change in 6e? All I've seen on the boards is the comment that Healing is changing, but he doesn't want to explain how yet.

 

Doubtless the build will be adding a few MORE of the modifiers it doesn't already have, like Uncontrolled or Trigger. Maybe a Gestures/Incantations combo with a custom meta rider so that characters can only regenerate damage if their players flap their arms and cluck like a chicken first...

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Now you see' date=' if someone had said [i']this[/i] in the great COM debate, I would have said "Oh. I see your point then." And it might have saved a great deal of trouble arguing for a compromise.

 

But in the Great COM Debate, that was never said, so I stand by our side as the reasonable one. WE were willing to move toward a compromise, while the anti-COM crowd was NOT.

 

A sucessful negotiation implies a conculsion where everyone got at least some of what they wanted. Thus far, I've gotten precious little that I wanted, quite a bit of 'I don't care either way,' and a good chunk of DO NOT WANT.

 

That seems to be what the problem was. Everyone lost track of the point of the 6e boards. They weren't there for us to discuss our opinions on what should or shouldn't be in 6e. And they certainly weren't there for us to come up with compromises on any of the issues. They were there for us to give our feedback (in a non interactive way) to Steve about what we thought should go into 6e. There wasn't any point in any factions arguing things coming to compromises, as neither side is making the decisions.

 

The 6e boards weren't a negotiation. They were a feedback forum.

[archermoo]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

I'm not getting "wound up" about it. I hope the Talent is not that crude a tool. That would be a shame to those that chose to use it.

 

I was interested in why Tasha felt Comeliness had no mechanic that effected interaction skills or perhaps why she (I assume) felt it was too complicated to handle. Though the Com wars I heard the first meme pursued aggressively by those that didn't like Comeliness. I started to interpret it as "I don't think Comeliness has enough function to warrant being a characteristic" but I'm curious if that's the case.

 

I've seen Steve make pretty much that exact statement about COM. As a reason why he was planning on turning it into a Talent.

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

 

 

I feel sorry for people who played in games like that with such an uncreative GM and poor role playing by the players.

 

Y'know what?

 

I've tried to keep quiet about these aftershocks of the Great COM Debate, but you've pushed me over the edge with your breathtakingly petty and insulting remark.

 

Your statement clearly implies that you (yes, YOU from the "losing side" ) cannot roleplay without a COM CHAR, regardless of the fact that physical beauty STILL EXISTS IN THE RULES.

 

It's one thing to say that you prefer to have it as a CHAR, but it's another thing entirely to insult someone else's playing experiences because they do not care as much as you do about a single, mechanically undersupported and ill-defined stat like you seem to cling to like a security blanket that tells you that you are a good roleplayer while everyone else sucks at it due to its absence in their game.

 

It's been long enough, so I'm invoking Godwin's Law right here and now when I call you a COM-Nazi!

 

I am done with the COM debate for once and for all and just to get that ball rolling, full color 6e books will probably have a bit of Striking Appearance compared to older releases.

[Balabanto]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

It should be a POWER, not a Talent.

 

A "Talent", for the most part, should be able to be trained for.

 

It should be a power.

 

You can learn to speed read. You can learn to feign death.

 

A Boob Job is not considered "Training."

[The Main Man]

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

 

Now about this whole "Killing Attacks are nerfed" thing: I was under the impression that BODY damage is of greater concern than STUN damage, and that part has not changed a single bit.

 

Besides, in earlier editions, the most important point of Resistant Defense was the first, since it was required to defend against the STUN damage of a Killing attack; now they are all equal, point for point.

 

Besides, heroes don't usually drop like flies in fiction, and HERO is about cinematic reality anyway.

 

Luckily though, it was well-designed for realism to be "plugged in" rather than "extracted," so it's generally easy to make whatever house rules you want to facilitate the level of reality that you prefer.