Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

[GeekySpaz]

I've come to notice a general disconnect between the players I game with and myself. The rest of my gaming group are not real big fans of HERO and I think I've finally figure out why that is. HERO has the flexibility to do almost anything and places very few restrictions on a player, which I consider to be the greatest strengths of HERO. It seems that it is exactly that flexibility that my fellow players dislike. They want a list of predefined choices placed in front of them from which they can choose. Given that preference they tend to favor systems that offer that sort of very restrictive structure. Thus I always find the games they prefer to be too restrictive for me.

 

I wonder if compromise is possible. If I choose to run a game for this group and use HERO to do it, what can I do to provide them the structure they desire without devoting every moment of my leisure time to define a menu of predefined choices for my players to choose from? Is there some other way to utilize the flexibility of HERO and at the same time help the players come up with ideas for their characters so they don't feel overwhelmed?

 

Thoughts?

[Maccabe]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

How about a book or two that has pregenerated powers? Until SuperPowers Database, or Champions Powers might help. V&V had a nice translation system to HERO, maybe you could use that, or something like that.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

What about using a published setting that will have sample characters and powers and, in the case of a fantasy setting, a predefined magic system, and so on?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

And possibly a nice set of packages built up, so they can mix-and-match a few and build up from there.

[Tasha]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

For Noobs and some Veteran players. Hero has so many options and ways to build a character that it's hard to know where to start.

 

The sourcebooks have gotten MUCH better than they were in the old days about showing players options. Powers built, packages of skills for certain character archetypes/professions.

 

As someone teaching others how to play you can either a. make their characters for them or b. teach them how to do it. The real first step for both is having them write in plain english what they want their character to do. Leave the core rulebooks closed during this part of character generation. Have them start with something really generic (ie for my Fantasy Western Steampunk game one player choose "Elven Gunslinger" as his basic type" Using the appropriate sourcebooks add detail to that idea (ie D&D type Elf abiltities, is a Marshal, is an expert with fighting with 2 guns, tracking skills) The more detail the easier it will be to build the character.

 

Tasha's character building technique AKA How to build Hero System Characters

My thread here goes into more detail about how to build characters the easy way.

 

Hero is like a writing a program, you start with a very General idea, and then add detail in plain english till you are ready to start translating the idea into a set of Hero System characteristics/skills/powers/complications.

[The Main Man]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

Pick a genre with more limits than superheroes so that you can prebuild powers/equipment or find published ones. I would recommend something that your group is interested in but has found no "go-to" game for. If that works, maybe eventually create a campaign that is similar to a go-to game you already play. That could show how convenient HERO's versatility is.

[torchwolf]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

Something I've run into occasionally with presenting the Hero system is player perception that the "reason from effect" results in bland, mechanical descriptions of abilities.

While this is true of almost every RPG system - in Hero especially, the mechanics are laid bare, which some perceive as destroying the illusion somewhat.

 

If this is the case, you should definitely show these players the text descriptions of prebuilds (like the Talents section of the rules, Champions Powers/USPD/Fantasy Hero or similar) where resulting constructs are described in a context. Sometimes, players get sidetracked by underlying mechanics when these are described out of context. The text descriptions are the alpha and omega of Hero system builds; you start with a concept, and end up with having defined the concept.

 

That might help them grasp the other side of the coin; that the Hero system allows you to replicate as well as create abilities (and ability packages) present in other systems, fiction, or other sources, as a final result, not just the process of piling building blocks together (which of course most systems are forced to do at least to some degree in order to produce numbers for game mechanics comparison).

 

The advice given above by others are excellent and I can say nothing more on that; just thought I'd add a personal theory about player perceptions and presentation.

Essentially, I think I'm saying the same thing as Tasha but worded differently and longer.

 

Disclaimer: These observations holds no value if this is not the issue the players have with Hero. In that case, just ignore me and carry on.

[Tasha]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

Something I've run into occasionally with presenting the Hero system is player perception that the "reason from effect" results in bland, mechanical descriptions of abilities.

While this is true of almost every RPG system - in Hero especially, the mechanics are laid bare, which some perceive as destroying the illusion somewhat.

 

If this is the case, you should definitely show these players the text descriptions of prebuilds (like the Talents section of the rules, Champions Powers/USPD/Fantasy Hero or similar) where resulting constructs are described in a context. Sometimes, players get sidetracked by underlying mechanics when these are described out of context. The text descriptions are the alpha and omega of Hero system builds; you start with a concept, and end up with having defined the concept.

 

That might help them grasp the other side of the coin; that the Hero system allows you to replicate as well as create abilities (and ability packages) present in other systems, fiction, or other sources, as a final result, not just the process of piling building blocks together (which of course most systems are forced to do at least to some degree in order to produce numbers for game mechanics comparison).

 

The advice given above by others are excellent and I can say nothing more on that; just thought I'd add a personal theory about player perceptions and presentation.

Essentially, I think I'm saying the same thing as Tasha but worded differently and longer.

 

Disclaimer: These observations holds no value if this is not the issue the players have with Hero. In that case, just ignore me and carry on.

 

You made a different and completely valid point. Many players can't get beyond the mechanics ie a Fireball 10d6 Blast AOE 16m. Those players just see the 10d6 Blast AOE, and somehow that shortcircuits the fact that it is a Fireball. Hell, all of the dice that magic does in D&D is generic. The fact that the spell is published as a Fireball in D&D and does level x 1d6 damage.

 

I guess that's why I try to emphasize the Plain English Writeups of a Character's abilities and not the eventual "reason from effect" writeup. I find that once a players starts to think of the 10d6 Blast AOE as a "Fireball" and not it's game stats that the battle is won.

[Utech]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

Some ideas:

 

1. rule that things be bought in blocks of X number of points
   
2. ask players to write up characters in some other system, you do the conversion and don't give the HERO sheets to your players
   
3. ask players to write up their characters in text descriptions, you do the HERO write up and don't give the sheets to your players
   
4. write up generic architypical characters missing X number of points and let players add those X points any way they wish
   
5. write up generic "ordinary townsfolk" (or whatever benchmark you choose) and ask players to describe how their characters compare: Are you faster than a boxer? Are you smarter than a professor? Are you as good at kung fu as Bruce Lee?
   

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

My guess is that your players are suffering from one of two hang-ups. The first is the paradox of choice - when you have too many choices you get lost in the variability and can't decide. HERO lets you have an almost infinite number of choices, which ultimately is a good thing when you have a unique character you want to make. But there is something to be said for a little structure to help guide your choices.

 

The other possible problem is that HERO doesn't have a built in mechanic for "leveling up" which a lot of people (esp. video-gamers) find appealling. The trickle of experience points, even if saved and spent in a large block, is somehow less satisfying than suddenly going up a "level" and being able to access new and cool abilities, despite the unrealistic nature of the "level".

 

The solution for both problems is the same, although it is a lot of work for the GM. Basically the GM writes up pre-defined powers that the characters can have, built with several levels of effectiveness (you might draft the players to help with this if there are particular powers they want). Characters can access these abilities as their "level" increases. Then define "level" as a fraction of the character's point total, minus the base points. For example, if you start with 300 point characters (at 1st level) and define a "level" as 10 points, then an experienced character at 350 points is (350-300)/10 = 5th level.

 

Now define what the levels get you. For instance, make combat value and damage caps based on level (i.e. max DC is 6 + level/2 and max CV is 7 + level/3, or whatever you deem fit). For your set of powers, make some available at the start, but others not until a higher level. Take an Archery power for instance (can anyone get this or only warriors? or only elves? Your call)

 

Archery I: +1 OCV and +2 DCV with Bows (cost 6 pts)

 

Archery II: +2 OCV and +2 DCV with Bows and +1 pip RKA only to increase bow damage (-¼) (requires level 2, cost 6pts since 6pts are already paid for with Archery I)

 

Archery III: As Archery II but include Fast Draw with Bows and +½d6 RKA only to increase bow damage (requires Level 4, cost 7pts)

 

Archery IV: +3 OCV with Bows and 3d6 RKA OAF - bow, DC limited to normal bow damage +3 DC (-¼) (requires Level 6, cost 7pts; here we sell back the extra bow damage RKA and the DCV levels because this RKA doesn't have the limitation of half DCV while shooting like a regular bow)

 

You can do similar stuff for other powers or abilities. The players still spend XP on whay they want, but now they have something to work toward. Also, it lets the GM define exactly how the game works, which can sometimes be worth the effort.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

What genre? The genre books do an excellent job of setting down choices. Fantasy HERO, for instance, would be

Step 1: Pick a Race

Step 2: Pick a Cultural Template

Step 3: Pick a Professional Template

Step 4: Spend what few extra points you have.

 

In particular, a lot of the Professional Templates have choices beyond the initial set of abilities that the player can choose to add to his character. Or, if the character wants to "multi-class" he can choose two Professional Templates. The older 5th Edition books were just as useful in this regard. Dark Champion, Star Hero, Pulp Hero, Post Apocalyptic Hero. All of them had solid templates (called packages back then) that allowed you (either as GM or Player) to put some structure into the free form nature of the Hero rules.

 

Another thing to do as GM is set Campaign Limits. Tell them how many points, what the characteristic ranges are, what the maximum speed, cv, dc, defenses, points in a power, all that are. Structure comes with many thing. I find, more and more, that even if the players enjoy having it a little free form, they don't always build characters that I think are acceptable for the campaign. By providing structure (as above) and by defining what game elements can be used (Skills, Perks, Talents, Powers, Power Mods) you help build a sense of those guidelines.

[Susano]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

One thing to consider it divorce the numbers from the final character sheet. There's an HD expor that does that and it goes great lengths (IMO) to presenting a character and not a spread sheet. Also, emphasize special effects names and descriptions. As Tasha said, spells in D&D these days all do preset damage and have pretty narrow effects. So (IMO) there's little difference between Blast 10d6, 16m Explosion, and 2d8 Fire Damage, Close Blast 3.

 

Personally, I know that I thought a lot about how to depict esper powers in Kazei 5, so that when PCs use them you get more than 10d6 Blast, instead yet get (or should get, if the GM is on the ball) the ground ripping apart along the path of the attack, debris being picked up and pulled along, things cracking and bending, and so on.

 

Also, don't be afraid to ignore points and power levels for effect. I once had a PC use a Barrier/Force Wall to 100% block the damage of an attack. I said fine, but moved his PC back a hex on the map. That wasn't even part of the attacking power, but I felt it would look dramatic. The PC was suitable impressed.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

What genre? The genre books do an excellent job of setting down choices. Fantasy HERO, for instance, would be

Step 1: Pick a Race

Step 2: Pick a Cultural Template

Step 3: Pick a Professional Template

Step 4: Spend what few extra points you have.

 

In particular, a lot of the Professional Templates have choices beyond the initial set of abilities that the player can choose to add to his character. Or, if the character wants to "multi-class" he can choose two Professional Templates. The older 5th Edition books were just as useful in this regard. Dark Champion, Star Hero, Pulp Hero, Post Apocalyptic Hero. All of them had solid templates (called packages back then) that allowed you (either as GM or Player) to put some structure into the free form nature of the Hero rules.

 

Another thing to do as GM is set Campaign Limits. Tell them how many points, what the characteristic ranges are, what the maximum speed, cv, dc, defenses, points in a power, all that are. Structure comes with many thing. I find, more and more, that even if the players enjoy having it a little free form, they don't always build characters that I think are acceptable for the campaign. By providing structure (as above) and by defining what game elements can be used (Skills, Perks, Talents, Powers, Power Mods) you help build a sense of those guidelines.

This is exactly the kind of setup I have for the Kamarathin setting and the OP's concerns are exactly why I did it that way.

[RexMundi]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

If you keep it all templated out for them it's not an issue. I've got a table that's mostly 2/3rds D20 Converts. They are exceptionally out of their comfort zone with it, if you hand them the rule book, they'll get lost in the options, and forget about what they want to make. It's because it's normally already done for them (that's half the problem).....

 

But hand them a genre book with the packages and template builds in it, THAT'S what they're Used to seeing. Two of my d20 People couldn't make a Super Hero to save their backside, but show them the Champions book, and it's in a form they can visualize, and poof they can make a character. Same holds true for any of the Genre's really for that.

 

The Other Hold out I've had to hammer on, is the Power Gamer from another system. THEIR biggest gripe, is that now they are no longer "MASTER OF THE SYSTEM!" and they don't like how that feels. The sheer thought of someone else at the table being able to do something with a game system better then them, is just to much for them to deal with....

 

I got around all of this initially in my current 6e Game, by Making all the PC's at first. Now granted on of the reasons I wanted to do that is because the main arc of my current campaign is very complicated for a lot of folks, it incorporates a multiple genre angle, wraps it up in a wold newton box, presents it with a side of pulp and the smell of napalm on the beach in the morning. Now, everything once PLAY started, has been completely the players, but the initial builds I handled, and let them learn by Play all the ins and outs of the game. In short, it got rid of the perception of work, and now, I've had to start two side arcs (I allow the players play to fill in a lot of the campaigns back stories, makes them pay more attention to what they do in game, since that reflects upon future or past arcs, AND, the alternate arcs of play give me something to run when certain folks can or can not show, and or I feel like a slightly different genre for the evening)....

 

Once you get them rolling in the system, you can sit back and watch the wheels cogs and gears start to move. After that, it's just a matter of quashing the power gamer impulses (After all, it's Game Master, not Game May I?), and you'll have a rock solid game with people clamoring for you to run it more often, heh.

 

~Rex...says...Hugo Danner > Superman

[OddHat]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

I think Gestalt for 5thed did a great job with this for Superhero games; just follow the packages and go, even a relative newbie can have the mechanics of a character in under an hour. Lucha Hero did a great job as well. Plenty of other first rate books out now and coming out for 6th.

 

Personally, I don't ask new players what they want mechanically unless they already know the system. I give them a pre made character for the first session or two, with a clear written description of what the character can do, then let them work with me to make a new character or re-write the one they now have after they've learned the basics. It's not much more work for you, and it gives you players with a better grasp of what the numbers mean when they finally sit down to build their first character.

[The Main Man]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

One thing to consider it divorce the numbers from the final character sheet. There's an HD export that does that and it goes great lengths (IMO) to presenting a character and not a spread sheet. Also' date=' emphasize special effects names and descriptions. [/quote']

I made a set of Export Templates with that exact purpose in mind. Its only weaknesses are the Wealth Perk and Multipower Slots (Fixed versus Variable), both of which can be fixed with a simple Custom Adder. I attached them for anyone who wants to try them out. PM me for questions and suggestions if anyone has them. I also provided a version with costs for comparative purposes.

 

[ATTACH]37288[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]37289[/ATTACH]

 

I also remember someone else making a rather splendid RTF one without costs too.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

As is true in all endeavors, you need to cater to your audience.

 

The advantage of "universal" systems is that it allows you to cater to a diverse range of audiences with a lot of control over the nuances, whereas the designers of pre-baked games have made a lot of assumptions about you and your audience and present themselves as is.

 

It's the difference between raw materials and final branded products.

 

 

You have some options w/ a generic universal system; here are few:

 

 

Collaborative: You sit down with the players and help them flesh out their character concepts...or perhaps even the entire setting, working together to produce a coherent whole. In effect you are all working together as a game design team to make the setting and define the paradigm.

 

Free Form: You let the players come up with whatever, riding herd only as necessary. You then incorporate their ideas into the setting and run with it. In effect, each player has functioned like a game designer at a micro level. They've made some decisions about what is and isn't true / allowable in the game and how certain ideas can or should be expressed, inclusive of any guidance or limits you imposed (such as point range, damage caps, and so forth).

 

 

Purchased: You buy published material that is professionally produced and use it, perhaps with some modification but generally as represented. In addition to serving as a time-saver it also operates as an impartial external authority on what is and isn't possible. It frees you up from having to make decisions or stand up to player criticism to justify decisions made by you. You can concentrate on just running games rather than designing them. At its extreme this is exactly the same as running a non generic universal game; the fact that the underlying engine is a universal one is immaterial.

 

 

Open Source: You use free material created by other fans of the game either as is or with modifications, and treat the source(s) as an external authority. This is exactly the same as buying published books, they just lack the vaneer or professional publishing and the possible benefit of having a company backing the product.

 

Home Brew: You as the GM create the setting, what exists, what doesn't, what is or isnt possible, the works. You present a branded product with defined packages, races, organizations, roles, what have you and the player use this material when making their characters. This is exactly the same as if you had bought a product published by a 3rd party, save that you are acting as the game designer. On the down side, it takes a big time investment. On the up side it allows you to build exactly the game that you want.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Hero (and other generic systems), too flexible?

 

I've come to notice a general disconnect between the players I game with and myself. The rest of my gaming group are not real big fans of HERO and I think I've finally figure out why that is. HERO has the flexibility to do almost anything and places very few restrictions on a player' date=' which I consider to be the greatest strengths of HERO. It seems that it is exactly that flexibility that my fellow players dislike. They want a list of predefined choices placed in front of them from which they can choose. Given that preference they tend to favor systems that offer that sort of very restrictive structure. [/quote']

 

I've had similar issues, though a big chunk of it is also the fact that such flexible systems tend to be very complicated, and HERO is definitely no exception there. Nobody I know around here wants to learn the system ... which just makes more work for me when I run it, and means I never get to play.