How Would You Improve HERO?

[Barton]

Getting a better demo program

 

I would like DOJ to make a great demo program for getting the product in the stores. THIS IS VITAL to keep DOJ growing and producing the wonderful products we all enjoy.

I have several ideas on how to do this, but I am no expert in game marketing. I hope that this will start a future discussion about how to expand/improve the demo program.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by zornwil

Well, one complaint - I think it's unfair that Fantasy HERO got way more pages than Champions. I imagine the idea is that Fantasy as a genre requires more finessing of the rules, as well as the priority HERO probably has on attracting Fantasy customers. But given that Champions has at least traditionally been the company's flagship product or genre, I feel that its genre book should more-or-less arbitrarily have included more "stuff". However, that book was one of the first of the relaunched HERO, so I imagine that played into the picture as well.

 

Since I'm not a fan of the Supers Genre perhaps I'm seeing this differantly, but Champions has far more pages than the other genres, the Champions book may be smaller but it is pretty much a given that Champions will have 2 or three good size subgenre books (Galactic Champions, Golden Age and Dark Champions), StarHERO and Fantasy HERO may be larger books but they will probably be stand alone for some time, the Champions books are already on the schedule. Then you throw in the support material and Champions again has the most. Pulp and Modrn are way down the list (and modern looks like its just going to be part of Dark Champions which I don't think will give enough to do a realistic modern game vs a modern supers game unless the book is the size of FH).

[Rene]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

Since this is not likely and selfish on my part, I would like to see Supers seperated from the rest for the many inconsistancies it creates, Supers is far to unrealistic to have all the the rules, equipment, weapons etc fit both that genre and the rest of the more realistic settings (FH, modern etc).

 

I'm curious. What inconsistencies do you think this situation creates? Apart from the STR problem, I don't see much else. What I really think is that HERO, as it is now, is very slanted toward Epic Genres, not only supers. I think HERO does most of the Epic Genres well, because most of them work under the same basic assumptions as Supers, only with a more limited selection of powers available.

 

Furthermore, I think that is a basic limitation of all RPGs I ever knew. You can do epic well OR you can do realistic well. But you rarely can do both really well. GURPS, for instance, is the opposite of HERO, in that it is geared toward realism and does a poor job of epic genres. I think HERO works really well for High Fantasy (Zelazny, Brust, Erikson and the other kinds of "Demigod Fantasy") and somewhat less well with the rest.

 

I'm more or less happy with that, as I prefer epic.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Rene

I'm curious. What inconsistencies do you think this situation creates? Apart from the STR problem, I don't see much else. What I really think is that HERO, as it is now, is very slanted toward Epic Genres, not only supers. I think HERO does most of the Epic Genres well, because most of them work under the same basic assumptions as Supers, only with a more limited selection of powers available.

 

Furthermore, I think that is a basic limitation of all RPGs I ever knew. You can do epic well OR you can do realistic well. But you rarely can do both really well. GURPS, for instance, is the opposite of HERO, in that it is geared toward realism and does a poor job of epic genres. I think HERO works really well for High Fantasy (Zelazny, Brust, Erikson and the other kinds of "Demigod Fantasy") and somewhat less well the rest.

 

I'm more or less happy with that, as I prefer epic.

 

The main one I see is "stat inflation"

 

The statistics used to represent highly trained normals in silver/bronze age superheroic genres are inflated compared to the iron age genre, let alone "realistic" games.

 

Its not unlike the difference in perspective between someone who builds Conan with a 25 ST and someone who builds him with a 20 ST (actually, the olympic weight lifting record comes out at 21 ST) and relies on heroic pushing to get him to do those amazing book feats (which is what pushing is for).

 

I don't see an issue with the current supplements, but I concur with Toadmaster that putting both street level supers and "modern" style games in the same book is liable to favor one style of play over the other, and lead to non-comic book games with inflated averages.

 

Another issue is equipement. The fact that one genre pays for it and another doesn't is proof positive that there are radically different assumptions.

[Gary]

Originally posted by D-Man

Its not unlike the difference in perspective between someone who builds Conan with a 25 ST and someone who builds him with a 20 ST (actually, the olympic weight lifting record comes out at 21 ST) and relies on heroic pushing to get him to do those amazing book feats (which is what pushing is for).

 

Actually, someone named Paul Anderson once did a back lift of 6,270 pounds.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Gary

Actually, someone named Paul Anderson once did a back lift of 6,270 pounds.

 

A back lift and a dead lift are two different things. The dead lift record (the main olympic title) is much less.

 

That wasn't, however, the point. The point was that different play styles have different assumptions, and that "realistic genres" do not benefit from being lumped together with "superheroic" ones.

 

Not everyone enjoys heroic level games with 25 strength fighters and 23 agility thieves. Some of us enjoy grittier, more believable stories and characters.

 

Sure, if you like chop-sockey style play and wild-cinematic effects you can go for that and there would be nothing wrong with doing so, but the genre shouldn't automatically default to it, which is what will happen if its included in a supers book.

 

I myself prefer to simulate Conan's great strength with his ability to push, and when ape wrastlin', his ape wrastlin martial arts package (actually a generic uber-warrior package, but you get the idea (I hope)).

 

My Conan has an 18 ST, an extensive suite of maneuvers, and a knowlege of big concepts like leverage. Nothing wrong with doing it that way, either.

[Rene]

Originally posted by D-Man

The main one I see is "stat inflation"

 

Actually I see "stat inflation" as caused by an altogether different reason. Characteristics are too cheap and effective, and that is why there is inflation. People prefer to buy 20 DEX than spend more points in Levels, Skills and stuff.

 

You DON'T have to use high stats to represent trained normals in Silver/Bronze Age Super games, though lots of people do and the characters in the worldbooks encourage this, with otherwise normal Energy Blasters with 26 DEX and 23 CON (all because Chars are so very efficient).

 

I'm one of those who believe Johnny Storm has 15 DEX, 18 CON, tops. And Ben Grimm has 12 DEX, maybe less.

 

What I'm trying to say is that, even if they published Champions books with low stats, some fantasy gamers would buy high stats because they're hellishly cheap. I think you have to fix the Characteristics costs to change that.

 

Hum... but if the supers genre had a bad effect in the rest is that one of the excuses for not correcting the cost of Characteristics is "it all balances out in supers games", because every character type has a "cheat" to fall back on (Power Frameworks, Martial Arts, Focus, etc.). While this isn't the case in non-supers. Maybe you have a point.

 

Don't see a problem with the occasional non-supers character having big stats (like 25 STR) though. Conan or Tarzan, for instance. They're abnormal people. The problem is when a pansy little elf has 20 STR.

[zornwil]

Of course we'll never know, but i suspect Rene is correct. The only way we can be sure is if we could observe a parallel universe where HERO started as a fantasy or modern street-level game and see if the stats encouraged inflation or if it's the super-hero gamers' influence.

 

But doesn't NCM reel this in, and don't most of you use NCM for non-superhero games? (Well, apparently not, but then why not?)

[Vondy]

Originally posted by zornwil

Of course we'll never know, but i suspect Rene is correct. The only way we can be sure is if we could observe a parallel universe where HERO started as a fantasy or modern street-level game and see if the stats encouraged inflation or if it's the super-hero gamers' influence.

 

But doesn't NCM reel this in, and don't most of you use NCM for non-superhero games? (Well, apparently not, but then why not?)

 

I do, and it does.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

Of course we'll never know, but i suspect Rene is correct. The only way we can be sure is if we could observe a parallel universe where HERO started as a fantasy or modern street-level game and see if the stats encouraged inflation or if it's the super-hero gamers' influence.

 

But doesn't NCM reel this in, and don't most of you use NCM for non-superhero games? (Well, apparently not, but then why not?)

 

Except that without strict GM controls, everyone will be at NCM for the important stats such as str, dex, and spd.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Rene

I'm one of those who believe Johnny Storm has 15 DEX, 18 CON, tops. And Ben Grimm has 12 DEX, maybe less.

Personally I hate NCM games because I feel that everyone ends up looking exactly the same. There is no diversity within the characters. Everyone seems to have around a 5-6 CV, and a 13-15 STR, etc. In an NCM game you have a 7 CV Captain America, a 6 CV Ironman, and a 5 CV Thor, with agents being in the 3-4CV range. The difference between being the best in the world and just a mook is only 3 points? It is far too easy to roll those 3 points on 3d6, IMO. The reason normals were given such low stats in Champions II was to show just how much better the superheroes were over the regular Joes.

 

Don't see a problem with the occasional non-supers character having big stats (like 25 STR) though. Conan or Tarzan, for instance. They're abnormal people. The problem is when a pansy little elf has 20 STR.

This is the statement which always bugs me the most. Everyone seems to forget that the player's characters are supposed to be the exceptional people. So yes, if they want a 20 STR elf then they should have it. The game is designed to let the players be THE heroes, and to be able to emulate the things they read about in comics, and literature, and mythology. So if someone wants to play Heracles, he should be able too. If someone wants to play Beowulf, it should be possible. If someone wants to play Achilles, no problem. The PCs should be the Tarzan's and Conan's of their world and should not be told it is not possible due to some NCM limit imposed by a GM.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Gary

Except that without strict GM controls, everyone will be at NCM for the important stats such as str, dex, and spd.

 

Its not an issue of control so much as it is an issue of perspective - which is why I advocate having heroic settings seperate (both in text and continuity) from superheroic ones.

 

Once the players understand that your average joe/peasant/colonist really is at all 8's, and most above average people are in the 10-12 range (in a few stats), inflation and racing for the maxima tends to taper off (at least, with my players it did).

 

I seldom see characters with more than one stat hitting 20, and its not a matter of control. The players simply understand they don't have to spend masses of points on characteristics to be "exceptional."

 

This is where I differentiate from Rene. I don't think the characteristic costs are broken (much) - I think the default examples are "broken." I could see some minor tweaking, but I don't think its necessary to fix the system (major transform), when a slight alteration to the source-material (cosmetic transform) would accomplish much the same thing.

 

[lemming]

Originally posted by Gary

Except that without strict GM controls, everyone will be at NCM for the important stats such as str, dex, and spd.

I was in one game where we had NCM for supers. This had started off as a fairly standard galaxy champions game that ran for many years.

The GM decided to switch universes since we had covered most bases there.

Most characters wound up getting sucked into this new universe, but being "reborn". I was playing the only native since my PC had been killed just before the switch.

After the switch, the GM decided to impose NCM. We still had the 700-900 points to spend. With the various low level powers, and the quantity of points we were pretty unique.

 

We went from a Dreadstar like Universe to Hyperion. Fun game.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Monolith

This is the statement which always bugs me the most. Everyone seems to forget that the player's characters are supposed to be the exceptional people. So yes, if they want a 20 STR elf then they should have it. The game is designed to let the players be THE heroes, and to be able to emulate the things they read about in comics, and literature, and mythology. So if someone wants to play Heracles, he should be able too. If someone wants to play Beowulf, it should be possible. If someone wants to play Achilles, no problem. The PCs should be the Tarzan's and Conan's of their world and should not be told it is not possible due to some NCM limit imposed by a GM.

 

So the GM shouldn't be able to set the tone and structure of the campaign he's running? He's totally at the mercy of the players interpretations?

 

This sort of statement bugs me. Different genres and styles of play have different expectations.

 

If the game is a "mythic game" or a simulation of "romantic cinema" then I agree, characters with inflated statistics (like beowulf or gilgamesh) are appropriate. Not all games are "mythic," not even all the "epic" ones.

 

If the game has "grittier" feel and seeks a greater sense of "realism," then characters like beowulf aren't appropriate, and NCM makes sense.

 

Its also a matter of stylistic preference and interpretation. I've looked at Susano's Conan and thought: "its a good write-up for a certain style of play, and a certain way of applying the rules."

 

I don't consider his 25 ST Conan invalid, but by the same token, I wouldn't build the character the same way (and like Susano I've read all of the books). I assure you there is no feat in them my 18 ST Conan can't pull off using maneuvers or pushing.

 

Its a matter of play style and interpretation, which means, perspective. I don't think Hero should favor one style of play over another, but the supplements they produce very much do so, which is why I would like to see a wider variety of examples represented.

[Tom McCarthy]

Actually, I think all you need are more authors to give more variety to Champions products.

 

In Classic Enemies, the Conquerors definitely came from a campaign with different assumptions than Eurostar. The Conquerors tended to relatively low DEX, OCV levels, and DCs that outstripped defences. Quite different from the typical Champions campaign of the day.

 

Certainly, Sean Fannon was playing on a very different playing field than Charles Brown.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by D-Man

So the GM shouldn't be able to set the tone and structure of the campaign he's running? He's totally at the mercy of the players interpretations?

The strength of the HERO Systems is its ability for players to be able to emulate the characters they read about in books, comics, and other medias. The HERO System is not limited by the "18" mentality of d20. No D&D player is going to be able to play Heracles (super strength). No D&D player is going to be able to play Achilles (super invulnerability). No D&D player is going to be able to play Conan (super strength, agility, and prowess). The D&D game system does not allow those things. While most people don't realize it, D&D is far more about balance than the HERO System ever will be.

 

As a player I do not want limiting factors on any character I design. I want to be able to emulate the genre not a GM's idea of how he wants to emulate D&D. I want the chance to play Conan, not the chance to play Krona, who is weaker, less agile, and less good at fighting than Conan. Yes some players do tend to try and push the envelope, and then the GM must step in and say no, but most long-term HERO System players understand the limits long before the GM must veto somethin.

 

If you take away a player's ability to emulate and play the type of character they want to play then you might as well be playing d20, with levels, and classes, and all the other restrictions, IMO. The HERO System is about creating what you want, not working within limits.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Tom McCarthy

Actually, I think all you need are more authors to give more variety to Champions products.

 

In Classic Enemies, the Conquerors definitely came from a campaign with different assumptions than Eurostar. The Conquerors tended to relatively low DEX, OCV levels, and DCs that outstripped defences. Quite different from the typical Champions campaign of the day.

 

Certainly, Sean Fannon was playing on a very different playing field than Charles Brown.

I think you already see that in the products. Darren's characters tend to be less stat-heavy than Steve's. Darren build many characters with 15-19 DEX scores, for example, whereas Steve tends to have a more cut-point approach to characters. I personally would rather see symmetry within the system. To me one of the biggest weakness of older additions of Champions was that the characters were all over the place in stats and power levels (35 DEX Rainbow Archer anyone?).

[Chris Goodwin]

Stat inflation is literally caused by PCs losing.

 

All the villains are DEX 18? Don't expect to see PCs with less than 19. Villains are SPD 3? Everyone builds characters with SPD 4. And so on.

 

If you don't want your players building characters with inflated stats, give most of their villains lower stats. And make sure that when they do face someone who is higher, that the stakes are higher and that they know that this is an extra special fight.

 

(Reminds me of the guy who posted once saying "All of my players build characters with resistant defenses whether it's in concept or not." If all of the villains, even the thugs, have killing attacks, then yeah all of the characters are going to have rDEF.)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Except that without strict GM controls, everyone will be at NCM for the important stats such as str, dex, and spd.

 

Granted, that's the problem M&M has with their breakpoints for characteristics.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by archer

Stat inflation is literally caused by PCs losing.

 

All the villains are DEX 18? Don't expect to see PCs with less than 19. Villains are SPD 3? Everyone builds characters with SPD 4. And so on.

 

If you don't want your players building characters with inflated stats, give most of their villains lower stats. And make sure that when they do face someone who is higher, that the stakes are higher and that they know that this is an extra special fight.

 

(Reminds me of the guy who posted once saying "All of my players build characters with resistant defenses whether it's in concept or not." If all of the villains, even the thugs, have killing attacks, then yeah all of the characters are going to have rDEF.)

 

The thing is, mostly, characters don't know what the villains have for stats, at least in my experience both as player and GM. I think that PCs provide eachother plenty of stat inflation (he's got 20? I should be at 25 then), but the larger issue as well is the source material - we often want to model ourselves after characters who have themselves inflated or are inflated as the story requires. Also, the books have certainly provided grounds for stat inflation, with the power for "standard" Champions heroes increasing over time.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Monolith

Personally I hate NCM games because I feel that everyone ends up looking exactly the same. There is no diversity within the characters. Everyone seems to have around a 5-6 CV, and a 13-15 STR, etc. In an NCM game you have a 7 CV Captain America, a 6 CV Ironman, and a 5 CV Thor, with agents being in the 3-4CV range. The difference between being the best in the world and just a mook is only 3 points? It is far too easy to roll those 3 points on 3d6, IMO. The reason normals were given such low stats in Champions II was to show just how much better the superheroes were over the regular Joes.

 

Let me explain some of my positions better.

 

I'm not advocating NCM for Supers games (except if it's a Wild Cards game or somesuch). I just said that I think (and that is a personal oppinion) that characters like the Human Torch, Cyclops, and Green Lantern don't have superhuman Characteristics. I'm okay with Captain America having them.

 

I dislike that kind of interpretation where every damned non-brick super has at least 23 DEX, and even supposedly "clumsy" bricks have 18 DEX. And no one has less than 5 SPD.

 

Furthermore, the difference between a super and a mook isn't just 3 pts. You're forgetting Skills. Yes, the Human Torch and Cyclops aren't much higher than thugs in their DEX, but they have Skill Levels with their Attacks, for instance. And probably some Martial Arts (Cyclops certainly).

 

A third point is that you have to build your mooks accordingly, of course. If you create VIPER Agents with 18 DEX, you're encouraging PCs with high DEX, no matter if that is in concept or not, Old Aunt Psionic will have 23 DEX.

 

12-14 DEX is good for highly trained VIPER Agents. Less gifted thugs can get by with 10-12. Comic relief clumsy thugs can even have 8 DEX.

 

 

Originally posted by Monolith

This is the statement which always bugs me the most. Everyone seems to forget that the player's characters are supposed to be the exceptional people. So yes, if they want a 20 STR elf then they should have it. The game is designed to let the players be THE heroes, and to be able to emulate the things they read about in comics, and literature, and mythology. So if someone wants to play Heracles, he should be able too. If someone wants to play Beowulf, it should be possible. If someone wants to play Achilles, no problem. The PCs should be the Tarzan's and Conan's of their world and should not be told it is not possible due to some NCM limit imposed by a GM..

 

Read again what I wrote.

 

If you want to play a muscle-bound powerhouse, then be my guest. If your *concept* calls for you to be Heracles or Achilles or whatever, then buy your 25 STR.

 

Likewise, if your elf is renowed as the "strongest elf on Earth" buy 20 STR for him.

 

But if your concept is a PANSY elf (that is what I said), that is, a agile, delicate, fast, relies-on-wits-and-speed elf, then what the hell are you doing with 20 STR and 20 CON?

 

Simple, you're buying it just because STR and CON are hideously efficient. And I'm not sure I fault you for it.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Monolith

The strength of the HERO Systems is its ability for players to be able to emulate the characters they read about in books, comics, and other medias. The HERO System is not limited by the "18" mentality of d20. No D&D player is going to be able to play Heracles (super strength). No D&D player is going to be able to play Achilles (super invulnerability). No D&D player is going to be able to play Conan (super strength, agility, and prowess). The D&D game system does not allow those things. While most people don't realize it, D&D is far more about balance than the HERO System ever will be.

 

As a player I do not want limiting factors on any character I design. I want to be able to emulate the genre not a GM's idea of how he wants to emulate D&D. I want the chance to play Conan, not the chance to play Krona, who is weaker, less agile, and less good at fighting than Conan. Yes some players do tend to try and push the envelope, and then the GM must step in and say no, but most long-term HERO System players understand the limits long before the GM must veto somethin.

 

If you take away a player's ability to emulate and play the type of character they want to play then you might as well be playing d20, with levels, and classes, and all the other restrictions, IMO. The HERO System is about creating what you want, not working within limits.

 

Every setting and style of play has appropriate limits and conventions that allow for continuity, consistency, and shared expectations.

 

The strength of hero is that you can tailor it as necessary for the game at hand, for your particular group - not that you can "make whatever you want," even when what you want may not be appropriate for the game at hand. The characters have to be internally consistent to the game, which is something the GM and players should determine in advance.

 

My players prefer the flexibility of hero, but also prefer a more realistic style of play, which is what I give them (and prefer to run). Its not for everyone, but then, neither is your method.

 

If I were to run a game that was "mythic" as opposed to "epic" I would accept inflated characteristics as they would be appropriate, but its unlikely my players would stick around long.

 

Your "might has well play d20" themed statements are unecessary and innapropriate to the topic at hand as they serve more as a left handed ad hominem attack than a form of argument. You are essentially saying, even if you do not intend to, that those who don't use the herosystem the way you do (or interperet its application the way you do) shouldn't use it at all.

 

Balderdash.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by D-Man

Your "might has well play d20" themed statements are unecessary and innapropriate to the topic at hand as they serve more as a left handed ad hominem attack than a form of argument. You are essentially saying, even if you do not intend to, that those who don't use the herosystem the way you do (or interperet its application the way you do) shouldn't use it at all.

That is not what I am saying at all, so do not put words in my mouth. The strength of d20 is that is it limited and balanced; everyone starts at 1st level, everyone build up the same way. That is not the strength of HERO. The strength of HERO is being able to decide that you want to play Samson, and then building the character and playing him. People play HERO because they like the strength of HERO, and that is the same reason they play d20, but you should not try and turn HERO into d20, IMO.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Rene

Let me explain some of my positions better.

No one can win and NCM debate. I have been in literally hundreds of them over the last 2 years on these boards. You like you characters weaker and more humancentric. I like my heroes larger than life. You want most characters in the 14-18 DEX, 3-4 SPD range. I want most characters in the 18-30 DEX, 4-7 SPD range. One way of playing is not better then the other when all things are designed for each style. I just do not like the idea of needing to buy Batman a dozen skill levels just to keep him from getting killed by a bunch of average mooks with guns. I would much rather just give him the 30 DEX and 6 Levels. It is just a difference in style.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Monolith

That is not what I am saying at all, so do not put words in my mouth. The strength of d20 is that is it limited and balanced; everyone starts at 1st level, everyone build up the same way. That is not the strength of HERO. The strength of HERO is being able to decide that you want to play Samson, and then building the character and playing him. People play HERO because they like the strength of HERO, and that is the same reason they play d20, but you should not try and turn HERO into d20, IMO.

 

All settings, if they are to work, have to be balanced and internally consistent. Hero (as a system) allows you to establish that balance and consistency yourself without imposing it on you with hard-coded mechanics, but for a game to enjoy longevity, or work at all, it has to have some preconceived expectations - "limits" if you will.

 

Its only appropriate to build sampson for a game where sampson is stylistically appropriate as a character, which I would hope the players and GM had the maturity to discuss in advance. The player needs to ask (and the GM needs to convey) what the style of play and interpretive nature of the game is.

 

Which brings me back to Conan. Both Susano's interpretation and my own are correct, depending on the style of play, the game, and the gamers involved - and it has nothing to do with D20 (the only systems I've run in the last 13 years have been produced by Hero or Dream Pod 9, both of which rely on the gamemaster (and players) to set the balance and style of play.

 

In fact, Dream Pod 9, who has openly credited Aaron Allston for certain ideas used in their books, has a concept I think that illustrates my point quite well:

 

Reality Distortion Levels. You can select the appropriate reality distortion level for te style of play you want to have (gritty, adventurous, and cinematic). Die result calculation methods, which rules you use, and various options, go with each.

 

This very concept is what I'm trying to get across to you like a broken record. Hero is an open system (a toolkit) that allows you to tweak it to suit your preferred "reality distortion level". My Conan is clearly "gritty" while Susano's is clearly "cinematic." There's room for both in the herosystem, insofar as they appear in a game with the correspondent RDL.

 

I'm glad Hero's current products reflect your preffered reality distortion level, but that, in of itself, is the point. The products reflect one such level, when there are in fact, several (all of which are correct).

 

The question was how I would "fix" hero. As I said before: it's not the system, its the source material. I would give other reality distortion levels more air time at the heroic level. You may disagree until you are blue in the face (oh, wait, you already are ), but that will not change my answer - because your needs are being addressed and mine aren't.