How Would You Improve HERO?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Doc Democracy

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.

 

I haven't seen this construction before, quite interesting. Given that additional dice of HTH used to be 3 points per 1d6, you may have hit on something. I've never been fond of the idea of recosting STR to 2 per point but have always thought it may be a bit undercosted at 1 per point, just not enough to warrant action. This may be a good approach that would work in both heroic and superheroic games.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

(snip)

Actually the M1 in 5th is different...

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there weren't changes, I just meant in terms of what was discussed re BOD and DEF, as a reaction to the earlier cited bit on tanks.

 

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.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by having different stats, if you mean ramping them up or down, I don't see why.

 

I have heard that STR as costed is too powerful for pulp or other non-super genres, as I'm sure you have. In fact I've heard more complaints about the system being too high-powered for realistic genres rather than too low-powered.

 

I am used to hearing about how terrible hero is for "realistic" genres when in fact I've used it for many without complaint...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

 

I haven't heard that except where people get into comparisons to "real life" (as opposed to "realistic") and simulating real combat. I'd agree with you that it does realistic RPGing well. From what I've seen I think most people seem to feel it does, more often among those who don't like it, i'ts for the system for being too detailed or too math heavy.

 

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

 

First, I want to say I snipped a bunch of stuff above just to concentrate on a few asides, general comments in response. My responses above were not meant as argumentative to the selected points, just comparing my own observations; they certainly aren't intended to refute your point as a whole.

 

However, second, I must admit I'm only partially getting what the issue is in terms of your desire to separate out how Champions is treated. You've mentioned equpment costs and power levels - is that really it? Or is it a rules thing?

 

Sorry, I'm probably just being slow here.

[Tom Carman]

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 haven't tried this out, but how about giving NCM more of a curve? Instead of just doubling over 20, increase costs to 150% at 16, 200% at 21 and 250% at 26.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by zornwil

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there weren't changes, I just meant in terms of what was discussed re BOD and DEF, as a reaction to the earlier cited bit on tanks.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by having different stats, if you mean ramping them up or down, I don't see why.

 

I have heard that STR as costed is too powerful for pulp or other non-super genres, as I'm sure you have. In fact I've heard more complaints about the system being too high-powered for realistic genres rather than too low-powered.

 

 

 

I haven't heard that except where people get into comparisons to "real life" (as opposed to "realistic") and simulating real combat. I'd agree with you that it does realistic RPGing well. From what I've seen I think most people seem to feel it does, more often among those who don't like it, i'ts for the system for being too detailed or too math heavy.

 

 

 

First, I want to say I snipped a bunch of stuff above just to concentrate on a few asides, general comments in response. My responses above were not meant as argumentative to the selected points, just comparing my own observations; they certainly aren't intended to refute your point as a whole.

 

However, second, I must admit I'm only partially getting what the issue is in terms of your desire to separate out how Champions is treated. You've mentioned equpment costs and power levels - is that really it? Or is it a rules thing?

 

Sorry, I'm probably just being slow here.

 

I just mentioned the changes because the gun was the main gripe of most (oddly nearly all were in agreement the new one did too much damage, the debate began when the subject of how much damage it should do came up).

 

It's funny but I don't get all these, this stat or that stat are too expensive, KA's are too effective etc (I mean I understand, but I guess I just don't care). For many of these types of arguments I guess for me it just comes down to that's how its always been, it seems to work, so I'm not going to argue about it (but I'm also not one to worry to much about having the most cost effective way to do something, or comparing the cost effectiveness of one power to another, I figure out what I want and build it the way I think it should be, I don't like math enough to do a detailed cost analysis).

 

I guess my issue with statting for supers is just some of the debates I've been in, when the "Champions was first so all should bend around it" attitudes occasionally crop up it sours me on the genre, I really don't have a problem with the genre just those who feel they have more right to the rules than I do (I've been playing since 1st ed Champions too, I just don't do Supers much since Hero moved into other genres). I guess my issue is more with certain types of players rather than the rules. All of you have been most accomodating in this thread which really makes my argument hard to explain (damn all of you for being polite ).

 

Being one of those who do tend to push the limits of HEROs ability to simulate "realistic" genres I guess I'm a bit defensive when people deny that HERO can do this. I guess it comes down to sometimes I feel like in the sake of being "universal" there is a refusal of many to recognize that building the same object at differant levels to match its percieved ability in various genres is simply part of the differant genres and is not the same as having differant rules for differant genres (like some systems do and which does complicate things).

 

Perhaps a better example would be a pistol in a cinematic action game vs one in a gritty military based game, in the first 1d6 RKA might be reasonable while in the second the current weapon stats would make more sense, there seems to be a reluctance to have multiple stats for the same object even though that would often be the easiest fix.

 

I don't even know why I worry about some of this except at some level I suppose I fear DoJ will go back to the All Champions, All the time production schedule I got used to in the old days.

[JmOz]

DOJ is a buisness with the goal to make more money

 

IF Star Hero sells they will make more Star Hero

 

IF Champs sells they will make more of it

 

etc...

[gewing]

IMO that is just another campaign decision. A character can be made up at 5th, 10th, or whatever level in D-20 just as easily as a hero campaign can be started with 50, 75, 100, 0r 300 base points.

 

I like Hero Better, but... that does not mean there is not some flexibility in other systems.

 

I guess I fall in the high powered normals range. We used to play what I dubbed "Fantasy Champions" back in the late 80s. In one game I played a 23 dex, 20 str archer, in another I played a "genetically/magically enhanced super soldier" with a 30 str, 33 dex, 25 con, mystic danger sense and regen.

 

I would design the latter in particular differently now, but mostly just lower his dex, raise his 13 body, a few other things.

 

I actually started playing HEro system in a DI game, We later added low level powers.

 

It is amazing what a character with 6 levels with rifle can do.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[gewing]

I was always surprised by how low the stats of published characters were in Gurps. They made the system Stat friendly, then expected no-one to notice... Of course, they later published "the munchkin's guide to power gaming."

 

Originally posted by Tom Carman

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).

[gewing]

Most of the Thieve's world characters would have been VERY easy to make as 75 point characters at first. Later one particular author iirc ramped up the power levels until everyone was a god...

 

 

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.

[gewing]

The armor was similar, but iirc the thing that set people off was the Gun.

 

 

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.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I just mentioned the changes because the gun was the main gripe of most (oddly nearly all were in agreement the new one did too much damage, the debate began when the subject of how much damage it should do came up).

 

It's funny but I don't get all these, this stat or that stat are too expensive, KA's are too effective etc (I mean I understand, but I guess I just don't care). For many of these types of arguments I guess for me it just comes down to that's how its always been, it seems to work, so I'm not going to argue about it (but I'm also not one to worry to much about having the most cost effective way to do something, or comparing the cost effectiveness of one power to another, I figure out what I want and build it the way I think it should be, I don't like math enough to do a detailed cost analysis).

 

I guess my issue with statting for supers is just some of the debates I've been in, when the "Champions was first so all should bend around it" attitudes occasionally crop up it sours me on the genre, I really don't have a problem with the genre just those who feel they have more right to the rules than I do (I've been playing since 1st ed Champions too, I just don't do Supers much since Hero moved into other genres). I guess my issue is more with certain types of players rather than the rules. All of you have been most accomodating in this thread which really makes my argument hard to explain (damn all of you for being polite ).

 

Being one of those who do tend to push the limits of HEROs ability to simulate "realistic" genres I guess I'm a bit defensive when people deny that HERO can do this. I guess it comes down to sometimes I feel like in the sake of being "universal" there is a refusal of many to recognize that building the same object at differant levels to match its percieved ability in various genres is simply part of the differant genres and is not the same as having differant rules for differant genres (like some systems do and which does complicate things).

 

Perhaps a better example would be a pistol in a cinematic action game vs one in a gritty military based game, in the first 1d6 RKA might be reasonable while in the second the current weapon stats would make more sense, there seems to be a reluctance to have multiple stats for the same object even though that would often be the easiest fix.

 

I don't even know why I worry about some of this except at some level I suppose I fear DoJ will go back to the All Champions, All the time production schedule I got used to in the old days.

 

I see. I don't hear much of that attitude you mention about "Champions is first, others need to bend," BUT I fully admit I really play super-heroes more than anything else and I probably don't notice that attitude unless it's really elevated. But I can also see pretty clearly where that legacy is rather present in some respects; I think some rules should be shunted off to the Champions genre books and out of the core books. Case in point - Instant Change; people should shut up about the 5th edition version, I finally "realized" (quotes provided I hope to limit offense to everyone feeling differently), after having thought about it, that the cost IS fair for most non-supers games, and the old cheap way applies really to supers games where that ability is rather common, has little plot impact (typically, other than getting into combat quickly), and therefore little usefulness other than, as stated, getting into combat.

 

I don't mean to dissuade you from using HERO in a realistic way. When I say HERO is about fiction, I mean that the way people move and attack (SPD and sequential movement) as well as how damage is absorbed aren't on the level of a good tactical miniatures war game, and aren't supposed to be. The rules are supposed to provide for more dramatic results. However, could they be adapted? Maybe, I don't want to be dismissive of that. I think a LOT of work would be required, but then again maybe not a prohibitive amount.

 

Thanks for the explanation, anyway, I get where you're coming from.

[Toadmaster]

I hope I didn't come off as a Champions basher it just seems most of my negative transactions have come from that genre, I can't remember someone identifying with any other genre to imply that another genre is less "pure" HERO. Supers definately helped put HERO on the map but I'm glad that DoJ is giving the other genres a fair shake and actually providing supplemental material after the genre book, the old days of an occasional genre book and no support material while Champs books came out weekly (or so it seemed) still haunt my dreams.

 

I've been away from these boards for awhile, maybe the strong Champs only attitudes I ran into earlier have mellowed with the large number of products DoJ has been cranking out, it seemed for awhile every non Champs product brought complaints and gestures to DoJ about how they were missing the point (then again I will admit I've seen a few other genres with that one, many gripped about StarHeros place of the schedule).

 

Oh, well enough rambling.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I hope I didn't come off as a Champions basher...

 

Oh pshaw, think nothing of it. Seriously, you've been quite reasonable.

 

Oh, well enough rambling.

 

I never let "enough" rambling stop me!

[Rene]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I'm glad that DoJ is giving the other genres a fair shake and actually providing supplemental material after the genre book, the old days of an occasional genre book and no support material while Champs books came out weekly (or so it seemed) still haunt my dreams.

 

I'm a supers fans, and sometimes I feel left out too. 90% of the Champions books is Champions Universe stuff, and I'm not particularly fond of the setting. I'd rather see more diversity.