How Would You Improve HERO?

[Vondy]

Originally posted by zornwil

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

 

Hero has them, too (for determining skill rolls and stat rolls).

 

This is not, however, a defense of M&M.

[Toadmaster]

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.

 

My main issue with the Supers genre is that DoJ is putting all the maerial out there on an equal level, basically supers exist in all genres, just maybe not now. My problem with this is that it creates all kinds of headache when you try to build equipment etc because by extension they exist in the Supers universe which has wildly differant assumptions than those loosely based on reality. Take a tank for example, if we build a tank based on reality for use in a Danger International game we may have a main gun attack of 6d6RKA and armor of 30, for a realistic game this is fine but then you will hear the arguments begin, a brick like the Hulk can smash a tank with one blow that tank is crazy because the Hulk could not hurt it even with a haymaker and its gun would kill the Hulk with one shot, on the other end you have a Supers designed tank with say a 3d6RKA and DEF 10, now players like myself are going to complain because a regular rifle or even a magnum pistol will be able to hurt it. Issues like these may occur between other genres as well (bows vs guns, starships vs battleships) but I think these are far less difficult to compensate for since most genres have at least a similarity in physics that supers generally don't.

 

Basically I'd like to see the wildly differant genres seperated to avoid these issues, have a Supers tank and a "real" tank for example, it seems like DoJ is trying to hard to make all genres equal when in fact they are not, it is not so much a matter of rules as application.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Rene

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.

 

I primarily use HERO for lower level stuff, I have found it does D&D style FH well, and I've used it for "realistic" modern games where characters can and do get killed from time to time. Sure characters are tougher than Phoenix Command or Behind Enemy Lines but they are not all that much harder to kill than say Gurps. It seems that many believe HERO only works well for cinematic games but I just don't find this to be true, I think most of this comes from its Champions roots and players "raised" on Supers, in my case I learned the system with Champions but the genre didn't grab me so I really started playing regularly with Danger International, Justice Inc and FH which may explain my views since I started with lower levels and differant perceptions. Of course Hero does lend itself well to high level games and I would not argue that it is easier to play at these levels (you need to use many of the optional rules in low level games to get the right "feel") but it is certainly capable of representing lower power levels.

[Toadmaster]

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.

 

I can see where you are coming from and I mean no disrespect but the FH game you mention "reeks" of Champions, that is not a bad thing but it is far differant than the FH I play in. Perhaps my views have been formed from D&D and the many CRPGs like Zork, Diablo and Dungeon Siege. While the characters in my games are much more powerful than the typical townie they are not superheros, they must run from many dangers and there are Heros that the player characters look up to. I think it might actually be fun to run a game with the power levels you describe with Hercules, Beowulf, Merlin, Conan and the Pope in a party together off to save the world but I don't think its going to happen with 50, 75 or even 100 points, we're well into Supers points at that point (Dark Age Champions?). The GM must set the boundries and if that is to have all the players make 1st level D&D characters or Demi-gods the players have to stay within those limits, I don't think it would be much fun to run the above mentioned party through The Village of Homlet or to have a couple of 25 point herolets take on Grendel, thats why the GM sets the ground rules for characters.

 

(Please understand I'm not trying to speak to you like a 4 year old I often do not make myself clear in this form of communication so if it comes across like I'm talking to a child it is not meant to, just rereading it it kind of came across that way to me).

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I can see where you are coming from and I mean no disrespect but the FH game you mention "reeks" of Champions, that is not a bad thing but it is far differant than the FH I play in.

I think all fantasy literature reeks of Champions. Superheroes were created to represent the characters from heroic literature. Look at the most popular fantasy and mythology characters: Conan, Elric, Drizzt, Samson, Heracles, Gilgamesh, Theseus, Achilles, Beowulf, etc. All of these characters are larger than life. The entire genre is about larger than life characters.

 

Now you obvious like the D&D style of starting off weak and getting stronger but that is really not part of the literary genre itself. There are few fantasy characters who do not start out powerful and competent. For myself, I just know that most of my players would rather be playing Conan than Korban the 1st Level Barbarian.

[Tom Carman]

Originally posted by Rene

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.

When it comes to buying high stats in liu of spending more points on skills, I would rather deal with HERO than GURPS. At least with HERO, buying the skills straight up is a real option, if less point-efficient than jacking up the stats. With GURPS, on the other hand, high stats with minimal skills is the only way to go. And with the costs of increasing stats quickly rising into the stratosphere, you don't have enough points left for more than minimal expenditures on skills (whose cost also takes off like a skyrocket as you boost them).

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

My main issue with the Supers genre is that DoJ is putting all the maerial out there on an equal level, basically supers exist in all genres, just maybe not now. My problem with this is that it creates all kinds of headache when you try to build equipment etc because by extension they exist in the Supers universe which has wildly differant assumptions than those loosely based on reality. Take a tank for example, if we build a tank based on reality for use in a Danger International game we may have a main gun attack of 6d6RKA and armor of 30, for a realistic game this is fine but then you will hear the arguments begin, a brick like the Hulk can smash a tank with one blow that tank is crazy because the Hulk could not hurt it even with a haymaker and its gun would kill the Hulk with one shot, on the other end you have a Supers designed tank with say a 3d6RKA and DEF 10, now players like myself are going to complain because a regular rifle or even a magnum pistol will be able to hurt it. Issues like these may occur between other genres as well (bows vs guns, starships vs battleships) but I think these are far less difficult to compensate for since most genres have at least a similarity in physics that supers generally don't.

 

Basically I'd like to see the wildly differant genres seperated to avoid these issues, have a Supers tank and a "real" tank for example, it seems like DoJ is trying to hard to make all genres equal when in fact they are not, it is not so much a matter of rules as application.

 

I understand the problem in the abstract, but I don't think HERO source material necessarily has this issue. It seems to me that the characteristics/abilities for a tank, as described in TUV or (if it's even there) 5th Ed., work in any modern genre. The problem is rather within the Champions genre itself when you have high-powered characters AND the GM feels that tanks should affect them.

 

At least that's how I remember it, not having the books in front of me. I would ask if you have specific source material examples, and please note I'm asking out of curiousity, not as a challenge. Then it's easier to move this from the abstract to the specifics of the issues.

[Pattern Ghost]

The M-1 in Fred has 20/16 DEF and 19 BODY.

 

I'd say that normal small arms fire isn't going to do anything here. It'd take a nearly maxed roll on the weaker section of armor from a 3d6K attack to damage this.

 

Now, most 350 pt bricks are going to have a hard time breaking this bad boy (except they can flip it over, drop it from a great height, or throw the sucker, thus removing it from the fight), but IMO the default Champions Universe starting character level isn't a level of supers where tanks should be torn through like tissue. Higher powered bricks should have no problems with one, though.

 

The tank seems reasonably balanced to me, at least the one in the main rulebook. I don't have TUV.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Monolith

I think all fantasy literature reeks of Champions. Superheroes were created to represent the characters from heroic literature. Look at the most popular fantasy and mythology characters: Conan, Elric, Drizzt, Samson, Heracles, Gilgamesh, Theseus, Achilles, Beowulf, etc. All of these characters are larger than life. The entire genre is about larger than life characters.

 

Now you obvious like the D&D style of starting off weak and getting stronger but that is really not part of the literary genre itself. There are few fantasy characters who do not start out powerful and competent. For myself, I just know that most of my players would rather be playing Conan than Korban the 1st Level Barbarian.

 

I wouldn't say it all does, you are correct that much of it does though, particularly Mythology but to be fair Gork the dude with an axe who killed the giant rabid Chicken that terrorized the village of somethingorother isn't going to be remembered 1500 years later, unlike George the rich guy with flashy armor and powerful connections who was Sainted for killing a dragon, (See how easy it is to add the class struggle to any argument )

 

I wouldn't put the Lord of the Rings, the early Conan stories, Thieves World, The Riddle master or a load of other (not D&D series) books I've read that escape my memory in that catagory and there are many movies that don't fall into that range either and not all of them suck (although sadly good Fantasy movies are few and far between). Most Computer RPGs also fall into this lower level catagory.

 

My main point was that it is the GM's job to set the limits, if some players don't like those limits that is fine, but it is no differant than setting a champions game firmly into the realm of Batman and Spiderman and saying no to a player who wants to play the Silver Surfer or a reformed Galactus. I see no differance between that and setting a FH game in the mid level (5-10) D&D (for lack of a better example) power level.

 

Basically there is nothing wrong with a 500 point FH game but it is certainly not the only option and the GM has to set the limits. The idea I got from your earlier post was that high levels were the only way to go otherwise the GM is intruding on the players fun.

 

Personnally I don't really like campaigns where every session the characters are out to save the world, I'm much happier saving it one village at a time.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

The M-1 in Fred has 20/16 DEF and 19 BODY.

 

I'd say that normal small arms fire isn't going to do anything here. It'd take a nearly maxed roll on the weaker section of armor from a 3d6K attack to damage this.

 

Now, most 350 pt bricks are going to have a hard time breaking this bad boy (except they can flip it over, drop it from a great height, or throw the sucker, thus removing it from the fight), but IMO the default Champions Universe starting character level isn't a level of supers where tanks should be torn through like tissue. Higher powered bricks should have no problems with one, though.

 

The tank seems reasonably balanced to me, at least the one in the main rulebook. I don't have TUV.

 

Thanks.

 

Toadmaster, I know you probably put the tank example out there as a generality and may not be wedded to the example, but I'm curious what you think of this (as well as whatever other issues are similar that you find problematic).

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

My main issue with the Supers genre is that DoJ is putting all the maerial out there on an equal level, basically supers exist in all genres, just maybe not now. My problem with this is that it creates all kinds of headache when you try to build equipment etc because by extension they exist in the Supers universe which has wildly differant assumptions than those loosely based on reality. Take a tank for example, if we build a tank based on reality for use in a Danger International game we may have a main gun attack of 6d6RKA and armor of 30, for a realistic game this is fine but then you will hear the arguments begin, a brick like the Hulk can smash a tank with one blow that tank is crazy because the Hulk could not hurt it even with a haymaker and its gun would kill the Hulk with one shot, on the other end you have a Supers designed tank with say a 3d6RKA and DEF 10, now players like myself are going to complain because a regular rifle or even a magnum pistol will be able to hurt it. Issues like these may occur between other genres as well (bows vs guns, starships vs battleships) but I think these are far less difficult to compensate for since most genres have at least a similarity in physics that supers generally don't.

 

Basically I'd like to see the wildly differant genres seperated to avoid these issues, have a Supers tank and a "real" tank for example, it seems like DoJ is trying to hard to make all genres equal when in fact they are not, it is not so much a matter of rules as application.

The Hulk I designed is able to handle the 6d6 RKA.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

I think all fantasy literature reeks of Champions. Superheroes were created to represent the characters from heroic literature. Look at the most popular fantasy and mythology characters: Conan, Elric, Drizzt, Samson, Heracles, Gilgamesh, Theseus, Achilles, Beowulf, etc. All of these characters are larger than life. The entire genre is about larger than life characters.

 

Now you obvious like the D&D style of starting off weak and getting stronger but that is really not part of the literary genre itself. There are few fantasy characters who do not start out powerful and competent. For myself, I just know that most of my players would rather be playing Conan than Korban the 1st Level Barbarian.

Conan was leaping over stockade walls at the age of 16 and killing picts like it was going out of style. I can see your point Monolith.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

The Hulk I designed is able to handle the 6d6 RKA.

 

I'm no Hulk expert, but I'd expect Hulk better well be able to handle it. Not in stride, but one such hit oughtn't knock him out. I'm unsure if he should be stunned, though.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I wouldn't put the Lord of the Rings, the early Conan stories, Thieves World, The Riddle master or a load of other (not D&D series) books I've read that escape my memory in that catagory and there are many movies that don't fall into that range either and not all of them suck (although sadly good Fantasy movies are few and far between).

I am not a huge fantasy buff here, I did far more fantasy reading in my youth sharing books with my brothers, but I am fairly sure that Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Gimli & Legolas are all quite formidable; and possibly the heroes of their generations. I am also sure that characters like Cime, Jubal, Lythande, Shadowspawn & Tempus were also quite powerful (iirc Shadowspawn was the son of a god and Tempus a near immortly priest of a war god). And while I have not seen too many fantasy films, I will say that Conan the Barbarian did not show him as being weaker than the other heroes with him, and I am pretty sure that Lancelot from Excalibur was pretty darn tough too; especially at the end.

 

My main point was that it is the GM's job to set the limits, if some players don't like those limits that is fine, but it is no differant than setting a champions game firmly into the realm of Batman and Spiderman and saying no to a player who wants to play the Silver Surfer or a reformed Galactus. I see no differance between that and setting a FH game in the mid level (5-10) D&D (for lack of a better example) power level.

I have no problem with a GM setting limits in his game. I understand that it happens. But I do understand that setting those limits then limits the player's possibilities. If I want to play Berran the Thief, demi-god son of Loki, I am out of luck. But I can tell you that as a player I would much rather be playing Berran than I would Kurn, the blacksmith's apprentice.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'm no Hulk expert, but I'd expect Hulk better well be able to handle it. Not in stride, but one such hit oughtn't knock him out. I'm unsure if he should be stunned, though.

My Hulk, fully enraged, gets up to 150 strength and has a 30DC (10d6) HKA when strength is figured in, for rending tanks and the like. His defenses can easily handle the body a 6d6 RKA can throw and his Damage Reduction will absorb a lot of the stun. Some people probably don't think it's playable. I think it is. C'est la vie.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by zornwil

Thanks.

 

Toadmaster, I know you probably put the tank example out there as a generality and may not be wedded to the example, but I'm curious what you think of this (as well as whatever other issues are similar that you find problematic).

 

The M1 in Fred is Ok, not exactly as I would build it but I'm not unhappy with it, however when it came up after Fred was released there was much gnashing of teeth from the Champions side of things and there was a raging debate on the old boards which is one of the things that formed my reasoning behind moving Supers off a ways from the other genres. Debating physics in a game is hard enough, but having to account for green radiation from space, radioative spider bites, cosmic energy etc is pretty hard to reason with. The comics have an entirely differant point of view on many things with nothing but the artists view in many cases. As an example people were throwing out various issues of the hulk as pro and con for Freds M1 (apparently in some issues tanks were not a threat and he just brushes them away like bugs, in others they caused him some pain). The comics are often inconsistant even in the same series, much differant from people using muzzle energy, armor thickness and other things that don't change and can be measured. Granted niether are perfect from a game perspective but the reasonong behind them are vastly differant and hard to reach agreement between individuals, in most genres outside supers the more scientific approach is at least considered even if all don't agree on how to interpret the results.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

I am not a huge fantasy buff here, I did far more fantasy reading in my youth sharing books with my brothers, but I am fairly sure that Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Gimli & Legolas are all quite formidable; and possibly the heroes of their generations. I am also sure that characters like Cime, Jubal, Lythande, Shadowspawn & Tempus were also quite powerful (iirc Shadowspawn was the son of a god and Tempus a near immortly priest of a war god). And while I have not seen too many fantasy films, I will say that Conan the Barbarian did not show him as being weaker than the other heroes with him, and I am pretty sure that Lancelot from Excalibur was pretty darn tough too; especially at the end.

 

 

I have no problem with a GM setting limits in his game. I understand that it happens. But I do understand that setting those limits then limits the player's possibilities. If I want to play Berran the Thief, demi-god son of Loki, I am out of luck. But I can tell you that as a player I would much rather be playing Berran than I would Kurn, the blacksmith's apprentice.

In the Hobbit, it was a very small force of dwarves and a lone magician who hacked through an awfully large number of goblins without any support.

[Kristopher]

Personally, I don't mind a modern tank being something for most supers to fear.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Monolith

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.

 

No one way of playing is inerently better.

 

And I don't even agree with some others that your style of play is what is inflating Fantasy chars. I rather think that is a cost/efficiency issue.

 

But I was not quite getting into the NCM stuff, not directly. I wrote up Batman with 27 DEX once. I think that (at least in the comics) "highly trained" is as good as "superhuman agile" and you can do both by upping Characteristics, if said character's training elevated him all-around in athletic matters, for instance.

 

It's just that I don't happen to think *every* super needs high Chars. For instance, I don't think most pure blasters, mystics, and psionics from comics have many Chars above 20 (though there are exceptions, like Psylocke, who isn't a pure psionic, after all). I also don't think most bricks from comics have high DEX.

 

And, most important of all, thugs and NPCs (and villains!) are designed accordingly.

 

I've found that my style is good for me, for many reasons. It really helps to differentiate characters, the range really becomes 10-30 in Chars and 3-8 in SPD. It also helps to rein in power inflation when you need something explicit in your concept to allow you to buy high Characteristics. It makes combat faster (less STUN to go around), etc.

 

Does it simulates the comics perfectly? I'm not sure. Comics are seldom consistent. Different writers make different asumptions. You have issues where Cyclops looks like Indiana Jones even without his powers. You have other issues where a human-level enemy knocks him out easily with some luck. I can see both styles being "right".

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

The M1 in Fred is Ok, not exactly as I would build it but I'm not unhappy with it, however when it came up after Fred was released there was much gnashing of teeth from the Champions side of things and there was a raging debate on the old boards

 

I heard a bit of that on the listserv back then but it sounds like it was certainly less. The M1 in 5th is actually the same as in 4th, I'm assuming that this couldn't have been the source of histrionics.

 

which is one of the things that formed my reasoning behind moving Supers off a ways from the other genres. Debating physics in a game is hard enough, but having to account for green radiation from space, radioative spider bites, cosmic energy etc is pretty hard to reason with. The comics have an entirely differant point of view on many things with nothing but the artists view in many cases. As an example people were throwing out various issues of the hulk as pro and con for Freds M1 (apparently in some issues tanks were not a threat and he just brushes them away like bugs, in others they caused him some pain). The comics are often inconsistant even in the same series, much differant from people using muzzle energy, armor thickness and other things that don't change and can be measured. Granted niether are perfect from a game perspective but the reasonong behind them are vastly differant and hard to reach agreement between individuals, in most genres outside supers the more scientific approach is at least considered even if all don't agree on how to interpret the results.

 

To be fair, the pseudo-science of comics depends a lot on power level and realism of the particular line of interest.

 

In any case, though, I just don't see it. Yes, supers are fantastic, but HERO rests on SFX rather than science in any event and is suited to "heroic" fiction roleplaying. What you cited re superheroisms could be said as easily about fantasy, IMHO. I think lots of heroic fiction, book or movie or comics, includes a suspension of disbelief when it comes to physics, from Batman to Indiana Jones.

 

I think the issues you cite are really one of scalability. I think HERO handles that reasonably well, but the higher one goes, yes, the more it starts to break down.

 

Part of the problem, though, and the reason I'm rambling here, is that I'm still not quite seeing the problem you're reporting, I'm sort of guessing at it. I understand about debates on gun mechanics and how realistic or not HERO is - those have raged regardless of superheroics, concentrating moreso on actual ballistics and various real-world concerns that I don't think really belong in HERO anyway (to the level some take it, I mean, of course there should be a realistic "feel" for a given campaign, and grittier ones demand a greater bow to realism). What I don't understand is how the "default" rules and settings create problems due to the influence of the Champions part of HERO.

[Rene]

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?)

 

For some groups, NCM is the medicine that can be worse than the disease. All that it does is making sure mostly everyone will have a 20 in all Chars that are useful to them. This problem is very real, Fantasy HERO itself devotes some pages to it. Those pages left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

Actually, some Chars are so cheap and effective that even with NCM in place it may be a good bargain to buy them past 20. STR and INT (the last one for mages) are good examples.

 

One solution I've found for this problem is to educate your players carefully to try to stick to concept even when it's disadvantageous to them.

 

It's easier to do it when you get players that are new to HERO and aren't math freaks. Of course, as the GM you've got to do your part and not give 20 STR and 20 DEX to every city guard, create stories that have combat but don't rely only in pure combat (so as not to reward too much the character built for absolute combat efficiency), etc.

 

It can be done. But I'd rather they've changed the Characteristic costs or found another way to change their efficiency.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by zornwil

I heard a bit of that on the listserv back then but it sounds like it was certainly less. The M1 in 5th is actually the same as in 4th, I'm assuming that this couldn't have been the source of histrionics.

 

 

 

To be fair, the pseudo-science of comics depends a lot on power level and realism of the particular line of interest.

 

In any case, though, I just don't see it. Yes, supers are fantastic, but HERO rests on SFX rather than science in any event and is suited to "heroic" fiction roleplaying. What you cited re superheroisms could be said as easily about fantasy, IMHO. I think lots of heroic fiction, book or movie or comics, includes a suspension of disbelief when it comes to physics, from Batman to Indiana Jones.

 

I think the issues you cite are really one of scalability. I think HERO handles that reasonably well, but the higher one goes, yes, the more it starts to break down.

 

Part of the problem, though, and the reason I'm rambling here, is that I'm still not quite seeing the problem you're reporting, I'm sort of guessing at it. I understand about debates on gun mechanics and how realistic or not HERO is - those have raged regardless of superheroics, concentrating moreso on actual ballistics and various real-world concerns that I don't think really belong in HERO anyway (to the level some take it, I mean, of course there should be a realistic "feel" for a given campaign, and grittier ones demand a greater bow to realism). What I don't understand is how the "default" rules and settings create problems due to the influence of the Champions part of HERO.

 

I realize that the science in comics varies in "reality" but except for the really hardcore dark comics most have only a passing semblance of the real world, in most guns are probably normal attacks (unless the character needs to die for the plot), radiation grants great powers (instead of a horrible death) etc. You are correct that part of it is a scaling issue but unlike some I find HERO does allow the use of real world numbers to build stuff, it just doesn't work if compared to genres that are well outside of the real world, except for 4 color supers most other genres can pretty easily be tweaked to work with "realistic" equipment by dropping a DC, allowing characters to buy limited defenses to make them tougher or just not using all the optional injury rules. I certainly don't really mean Supers should be competely broken off from the line but it would be nice to see an offical recognition that at some point HERO can not be 100% generic and changes in the power levels may be needed, they certainly seem willing to d it in other areas why not equipment and other similar areas. I get the feeling that some people actually expect to be able to have Gandolf fight Superman with out any tweaks which while possible makes the 99% of other players have to deal with some funny situations.

 

Actually the M1 in 5th is different, the gun does much more damage (even alot of us gun freaks were mentioning this, it should only do 6 to 6 1/2d6 or so not 8d6 going by the 2x power = + 1 DC which is one of the other changes I suggested, stick with it or get rid of it), and yes it was a raging debate primarily stuck on "in the comics" vs "in real life" like I said kind of hard to settle when you are basically arguing oranges and tangerines. I have suggested on several occasions during these kinds of debates that Supers should have their own stats for games simulating "the comics" (or at least the ones that depict tanks as puny play things) but typically the Champions players want to tone down the official writeups for equipment to fit within their genre instead of just having a watered down version for 4 color supers. I mean really do you need to have an M1 Abrams tank in a 4 color supers game, won't a generic "TANK" do just as well, it probably isn't that important to the story line but you may need that level of detail for an espionage, post apacalyptic or military based game. Other genres fall in between but I rarely see anyone debate that something is too powerful to fit into a pulp game.

 

Basically I see the low end of HERO (where I spend most of my time) being sacrificed for the high end when with a little differentiation neither would suffer. I am used to hearing about how terrible hero is for "realistic" genres when in fact I've used it for many without complaint and I have played many games known for their obsenely realistic rules (Phoenix command, Morrow Project etc) sure HERO does not handle things as these games do but it does a pretty decent job while also having far more flexibility and wider support. In all fairness to DoJ in most cases they default more to my side than the other (most of the writeups get complaints from the Champions side of things). Strangely I often find myself thinking that Champions players are also the most critical of HEROs other genre potential, it seems they are the most die hard HERO doesn't do low level well people. Maybe its not the rules it may just be attitudes and perspective, nearly all of my experience comes from lower level games (even Champions was only 150-200 points when played somewhat regularly), someone who typically plays in a 350+ point game (in any genre) will probably have a differant experince and attitude from mine.

 

It's late and I think I'm rambling, hope this made sense.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Rene

For some groups, NCM is the medicine that can be worse than the disease. All that it does is making sure mostly everyone will have a 20 in all Chars that are useful to them. This problem is very real, Fantasy HERO itself devotes some pages to it. Those pages left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

Actually, some Chars are so cheap and effective that even with NCM in place it may be a good bargain to buy them past 20. STR and INT (the last one for mages) are good examples.

 

One solution I've found for this problem is to educate your players carefully to try to stick to concept even when it's disadvantageous to them.

 

It's easier to do it when you get players that are new to HERO and aren't math freaks. Of course, as the GM you've got to do your part and not give 20 STR and 20 DEX to every city guard, create stories that have combat but don't rely only in pure combat (so as not to reward too much the character built for absolute combat efficiency), etc.

 

It can be done. But I'd rather they've changed the Characteristic costs or found another way to change their efficiency.

 

Making players actually buy skills has done wonders for many games I've been in, at one point we were having serious stat inflation with FH, when we started out only "fast" characters had a 4 speed, occasionally slow brick type fighters actually had a speed of 2, most "average" heros had a 3 speed. Eventually everybody had a 4 speed and a few characters were running a 5 or even a 6 (endurance caught up with this one, so nobody tried that again) concept didn't have much to do with it, some players just wanted to go often and nobody wanted to wait around while everyone else was going which is why 4 became the minimum. So the GM tried something new, we had to start using skills all the time, there was a shift in focus, pretty soon the speed was back down to 3 with an occasional 4 as people tried to get more points for skills, everybody still had a good time, we still got to hack up orcs, but if you wanted to be involved you needed skills. It is amazing how much control the GM can have without setting hard limits. I think one of the toughest things to overcome is when two or more players have the same concept and try to out do each other (I'm playing a buff fighter, so I need a 20 STR, I'm also playing a buff fighter so I'll take a 21 STR, oh, really well then I'll take a 23 STR etc).

[Zaratustra]

You could always raise the cost of characteristics.

Maybe give more characteristic-related perks to make up for it? (1 CV for every 2 DEX instead of every 3, Power Defense from CON, Mental Defense from EGO or INT, etc)

[Doc Democracy]

Originally posted by Zaratustra

You could always raise the cost of characteristics.

Maybe give more characteristic-related perks to make up for it? (1 CV for every 2 DEX instead of every 3, Power Defense from CON, Mental Defense from EGO or INT, etc)

 

I have recently increased the cost of STR to 2pts but also changed the damage to 1D6 per 3 points.

 

15 STR now costs 10 points and gives 5D6 where before 10 points got you 20 STR and 4D6.

 

30 STR now costs 40 points and gives 10D6 where before 40 points got you 50 STR and 10D6.

 

45 STR now costs 70 points and gives 15D6 whereas before 70 points would have given you 80 STR and 16D6.

 

I've only used it with Justice Inc so far and it has given the characters a bit more granularity as far as their fighting stuff goes. The players were also less inclined to demand higher strengths.

 

Obviously it works out very similar at higher strengths and I haven't yet noticed any real imbalances using martial arts etc.