Why run Hero 6th?

[Simon]

For the rat:  one way to take the arguments that erupt about something as silly as version differences is that the people arguing (by and large) really care about the system and their version of choice.  That's a sign of a good system, IMO.

 

That's not to say I'm going to allow the arguments to continue (at least, not in a way that leads to personal attacks), but it does mean that you're dealing with people that actually care about the system and have come to love their particular version of that system enough that they feel the need to defend it in a public forum.

 

 

My job is to make sure that any passion they feel about a particular version, rule, character, whatever is directed appropriately.  

 

So...sorry about the loss of PaycheckHero from this thread, but hopefully useful discussions will continue.

[Greywind]

"Why play HERO?"

 

Because the alternative is unthinkable.

[ghost-angel]

To post more on topic;

 

One of the things I like Hero for is that while the upfront work is large, sometimes daunting, once it's done and campaign limits, restrictions, and standardized options (like how Vampires work in your world, for example); it's done.

 

The system neatly gets out of your way when it comes down to the talky bits and the dice rolling.

 

Possibly the hardest barrier to entry, especially for players, is the Reasoning From Effect aspect of creation and builds. I recommend giving that section a solid reading through, and asking questions if you have any. Once you understand Powers are merely Mechanics to Achieve Effects, sometimes things get easier. Getting hung up on the name of a Power can cause more problems than it solves.

[JasonPacker]

One of the things that brings me back to Hero time and again is nostalgia. I learned how to play Champions back in '84 (which makes me something of a youngster to some of you) and it was the first point-buy system I ever encountered. I adored it, and the freedom it gave to character design. It had flaws, but I've yet to run into any system, no matter how many iterations along it is, that doesn't.

 

Another thing is that I've yet to find a system that does the superhero genre any better than Hero does. There were games that came before Champions that were okay, but nothing like as detailed and rich, and many that have followed that feel like watered-down versions of Champions with different dice. 

 

There's also the perversity of having a system to call your own that isn't overrun by every gamer in the universe. A kind of self-imposed hipsteresque exclusivity to this club. It's an especially nice ego boost when people turn up their noses at the game because it's too hard - for them, but not for you.

 

Finally, and this has been covered by others as well, Hero is a system system. It demands tinkering - which is fun. It allows an incredible amount of flexibility. And in the right hands, it can work for any genre you can come up with. 

[Tasha]

@Jason. Don't feel too young the game as a whole was pretty young when you started to play it was first published in 1981. You are close to when many of us started to play Hero/Champions.

[JasonPacker]

@Jason. Don't feel too young the game as a whole was pretty young when you started to play it was first published in 1981. You are close to when many of us started to play Hero/Champions.

 

Oh sure, but there's always that one guy - "I played First Edition, and if you started with Second, you're a young pup and have to listen to me!"

[Tasha]

Oh sure, but there's always that one guy - "I played First Edition, and if you started with Second, you're a young pup and have to listen to me!"

Hell, I started to play with Second edition. Most of us did. I would say that starting with 2nd edition gives you as much Hero Cred as the person who started with first edition.

[UbiquitousRat]

Heh - I read 5e and am starting with 6e. It's nice to be regarded as a "young pup" in at least one area of my life.

[Spence]

Hi.

 

Honestly, I was really getting a lot out of the posts and replies to my genuine question. I wanted to know why I should play HERO 6e. I've been persuaded to try it. I am in the process of working out how to port an existing campaign to HERO 6e.

 

---snip---

You know it's a game, right? WHY SHOULD I PLAY IT?

 

Hmmm… why play 6^th edition?  I’ll take a stab at something that may be useful and maybe a little different.

 

 

In my experience with RPG’s they basically break down into four primary areas.

1) Character Creation – Player character game mechanics.

2) Threat/Reward creation – or the game mechanics  for the creation of monsters, NPC’s and such plus equipment/treasures.

3) World Adventure building.

4) In game play rules. 

 

All games have Part 1, character creation.   

While some like FATE make the selections very broad and simple, others make them complex and hyper detailed.   Games based on FATE have extremely short lists to pick from when a list exists at all.   Instead they rely on the players creating many parts of the character form their own imagination.   But this very flexibility can be very vague and undefined causing issues for a GM or other players as they interact with the character.    Games like D&D, Pathfinder and EotE avoid the issue of defining exactly what a character can do by basically trying to define everything possible.  This leads to immense lists and selections to choose from and creates its own issues as the players and GM have to keep track of what can literally be hundreds or thousands of combinations and permutations.

For HERO, instead of pre-determined lists or relying on vague catchall abilities, it allows you to build specific abilities from a wide view or narrowed down to a specific and meticulously defined ability using the same construction rules. 

 

All games also generally have Part 2, Threat Reward creation. 

This is where HERO begins to, IMO, pull away from the rest of the RPG world.  Most of the RPG’s I have played, from D&D to Runequest to Pathfinder and on and on, Monsters/Threats are usually provided pre-built in codex’s or bestiaries of one kind or another.   In many of them the game stats used for a creature do not even resemble the stats used for a character.  Player Characters and NPC’s/Creatures use completely different methods of creation and recording.   Equipment and treasure is usually simply assigned abilities or worth.    If the RPG includes rules or guidance for the GM to create or customize any of them, it is usually a unique system for just that purpose.

In HERO that is not the case.  Everything from PC’s to NPC’s to Monsters to Equipment to Magical Treasure  is created using the same rules.  If I can build a character, I can build anything else.

 

Part 3, World Building is pretty much the same, though I personally believe HERO’s genre books are some of the best written.  I have used Pulp Hero and Fantasy Hero as source books and idea generators for many other game systems.   

 

But Part 4,  In game play rules is where I believe HERO shines.

The rules needed to actually play the game can fit on less than 2 pages (see HERO in 2 PAGES available in the downloads section).  Once a character or creature is created you really have no need to refer to the rulebook anymore.  All their abilities are clearly defined on their sheet.  For me as a GM I created a 4 page aid sheet that has pretty much everything I might need when I adlib, like the Material Defense Table and the Wall Body Table.   But I have found I need fewer references than pretty much any game I have ever run and with my aid sheets I don’t have to crack the rulebooks in game.    

 

And that is basically my primary reasons to play HERO.   

 

I have a single unified build system for literally everything in the game that allows me to build anything I can think of.

And it uses a common resolution system that, once again, covers everything in the game but can be defined on a 2 page document.

[Hyper-Man]

Great post!

 

Hero, the Goldilocks of rpg's.

[UbiquitousRat]

Speaking of GM screens, spence, what stuff do I need?

I have the old 5e HERO Resource Kit, but some of the tables appear to be very different - like the Throwing chart.

 

Any tips?

[Hyper-Man]

I forget who made the 1st one but here's a couple of links to some pretty cool 6e GM screens:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6083133/Hero6eGMScreen.pdf

 

https://9db5d55d-a-bf34763c-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/legendsmiths.com/legendsmiths/downloads/HeroReferenceSheet-Landscape.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crml2ENK-icW7lxcM8iyDtgdjPoyjQiVMj2AcB9cG1YctriQ_pP701lQ2dBiNpEJWg978B9eC3DS8dYHGJGxt9Bi1rdAhhPEIZm2CMQ1AYqumxNUh2qK6WF8kawHXHQpV65hQ4YEsrGvwGIsh5nBnmbRva2fRAEgtVkqCIE6xMg7snYTb3QRuV04tYGFT_S32zjJL75BA4rlyZw-KfZvcP6JXi6kdXyDc1D1WOaMEsm-QBXAfxLCI-uGq_I-B3gA2XcNHTU&attredirects=1

[Spence]

Speaking of GM screens, spence, what stuff do I need?

I have the old 5e HERO Resource Kit, but some of the tables appear to be very different - like the Throwing chart.

 

Any tips?

 

I use one of the 3-panel universal GM screens that allow you to insert your own pages/charts.  Let me clean up the charts I use and I'll shoot you a copy.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Oddly enough, I have no trouble reading the rules, nor is it really necessary since the figured stats do the same as before. However, I now have to do a bunch of explaining I didn't before to people who buy dex when what they want is to be harder to hit. I really don't think that's a terribly difficult concept--a lot of games condition people to associate dex with being harder to hit, and since that was one effect before they tended to get the effect they wanted with their first character before really knowing how hero does it. Now I tend to have to fix it for them.

 

I think there are two questions here.  The first is "should DEX have a direct relationship to the ability to avoid being hit in combat".  The answer is, IMO, one of personal taste.  Long-time Hero players may expect it to, but that's an artifact of history.  In pre-6e, there were regular concerns raised with the DEX model, including:

 

 - there was no easy, intuitive way to build a very agile character (say a wily Rogue or an Olympic gymnast) who was not also very combat-capable (that is, high DEX without high OCV and DCV)

 - similarly, a character with high OCV and low DCV, or vice versa, had no easy, intuitive build structure

 - a non-superhuman DEX meant vastly overpaying for combat ability (or, conversely, that a high DEX provided too great a cost benefit, or "why DEX was a God stat" in prior editions).  6e fixed that problem, but it certainly could have fixed the costing while maintaining the link by adjusting costs - the whole "figured characteristics war", so enough said on that).

 

I note that Mutants and Masterminds also separates "OCV" and "DVC", making them separate stats not influenced by characteristics, and not required to move in lockstep with each other.  They even explain in their "what's different" discussion (at least in 1e and 2e) that these are not adjusted for high DEX or STR (funny...no one ever suggests Hero adjust OCV for STR, an artifact of the d20/D&D regime).  Of course, their starting point was a system where the stats had a limited impact on the ability to strike an opponent or evade an attack.

 

The second is whether the current rules explain the function of the various characteristics adequately and appropriately.  As noted above, M&M explicitly notes the lack of such a linkage.  Of course, M&M also bases its rules engine off the d20 system, so an explanation of how their game differs from the standard d20 system (familiar to D&D players) seems appropriate.  Hero being a separate system lacks the link to one specific alternate system, differences from which mandate summarization.  I would suggest Hero discusses "why DCV is not DEX base" under Hero System Philosophy (6er V1 p 8-9). indicating that Hero gives you the tools to build what you want in the manner you envision it.  To me, 6e, for the first time, gave me the ability to build a very combat-capable character without requiring I take a high DEX to build that character cost-effectively.  I could have a very able warrior, easily able to avoid attacks, who was not also an agile acrobat, and I could have an agile acrobat whose combat skills are negligible and who does not easily weave away from enemies, and lacks deadly aim with a bow or a sword.  In other words, Hero explains why it de-links these abilities.  Now, one may not agree that this is the appropriate philosophy, but that philosophy is clearly stated, a step many other games do not take. 

 

Nothing in the description of DEX suggests, to me, that it has any bearing on combat other than initiative, which is singled out as the reason it costs more than other stats.  The fact that this is highlighted, and  no other combat benefits are mentioned, suggests to me that DEX does not make the character harder to hit - to me, that's way more valuable than acting earlier (so that may be my own bias coming through).  DCV is clearly defined as the stat that "represents how difficult it is to hit a character in combat".  That seems pretty clear to me, and no other stat mentions the difficulty of being hit in combat.

 

I'm not sure all the philosophy was ported over to Champions Complete, but I'd bet the description of the stats was. Anyone know? My CC book's not with me.  Derek, you're not reading this by any chance?  To me, that provides a clear indication that DCV, not DEX, is the stat which characters use to avpid being hit by an attack.  I wonder how you explain this, Paycheck Hero.  I would point to the descriptions of DEX and DCV, and suggest it would be appropriate to read THIS GAME's definitions of characteristics in building a character.  I doubt it would need to be explained twice.  Does your game have CV limits?  I'd also expect a player in a new system to look pretty closely at game elements whose purchase is restricted - that tends to mean they are pretty fundamental.

 

IMO, the rules do a reasonable job of explaining the purpose of each characteristic, covering them all on p 41-46, taking 5.5 pages which is not that much to read (and 2.5 pages of that is on STR, including lifting charts which no one is going to read in their entirety, so it's more concise than that 5.5 pages sounds).  I'd also suggest that reading a game's philosophy, which is notably lacking in some games, is a good idea to get a feel for the objectives of the various rules, but even if the "experienced gamer" skipped directly to the Character Creation rules, I think the characteristics descriptions make it clear DX and DCV are not linked in any way.

 

TO SUMMARIZE:

 

 - SHOULD DEX IMPACT DCV?  That's a subjective matter of opinion with no right answer.  In many games, there is some link.  In a good portion of those, it is a modifer, not the main driver.  From the game designs themselves, this is a matter of opinion with no clear consensus.

 

 - DOES HERO EXPLAIN DEX AND DCV ADEQUATELY?  Apparently not for some players,  but I am hard pressed how someone could read the portions of the rules set out above and not realize DEX in Hero does  not influence DCV.  I don't think expecting a new player to read a short introduction to the system (especially the philosophy which drives the rules) and a few pages setting out what the characteristics do is unreasonable.  But reasonable opinions can still be very different.

 

TO THE OP:  You may want to direct your players to those sections of the rules you feel cover concepts most relevant, and especially to highlight what you perceive as the key differences (and/or similarities) to game systems your players are familiar with, which strikes me as a pretty diverse array,

[NuSoardGraphite]

  

- there was no easy, intuitive way to build a very agile character (say a wily Rogue or an Olympic gymnast) who was not also very combat-capable (that is, high DEX without high OCV and DCV)

Not at all true.

 

A high DEX character with no combat training has a -3 penalty to their OCV to do anything except hit people with their fists. a high DEX character who also has combat training should prove fearsome in battle.

 

 

- similarly, a character with high OCV and low DCV, or vice versa, had no easy, intuitive build structure 

Again, not true.

 

Buy combat skill levels. buy high dex with a physical limitation that penalizes DCV. Both writeups are simplistic in the extreme.

 

- a non-superhuman DEX meant vastly overpaying for combat ability (or, conversely, that a high DEX provided too great a cost benefit, or "why DEX was a God stat" in prior editions).  6e fixed that problem, but it certainly could have fixed the costing while maintaining the link by adjusting costs - the whole "figured characteristics war", so enough said on that).

DEX inflation was a major issue in pre 6th games because of its utility, this is very true. i solved this in my games by dialing back DEX and using combat skill levels and lightning reflexes a whole lot more, even in my superhero games. (Though i rarely gm'd supers). this is of course an old argument that has now been supplanted by the decoupling of figureds (which i dont agree with. i support the moderation method) but i disagree that these perceived problems were only solvable by decoupling OCV. That was only necessary if players refused to write up reasonable characters.*

 

*To be fair to most HERO players, the example characters in official writeups were written up in horribly unbalanced ways. players would logically use these templates as guidelines for writing up their own characters, so when they see that DEX-23 is the "average" dexterity and that defenses averaged around 25 (15res) then their own writeups would reflect this. as far as dex inflation was concerned, what i saw in the official writeups was overly high dexterity, even for characters who shouldnt have been high dex characters [grond, really?] and using dex to generate high ocv instead of using csl's to represent experience or high levels of skill. i noticed that the vast majority of hero players i played with followed this example. i examined this methodology and decided to follow the skill over characteristics route, first in regards to heroic level gameplay, which of course makes sense, but decided to explore that avenue when some of my players wished to do a supers game and it worked brilliantly to balance out the dex inflation. dex in my supers game i ran was between 15 and 23, with 23 being considered quite high and anything above that the purview of speedsters.

Characters who were experienced combatants had higher amounts of combat skill levels and this created an atmosphere where a dex 15 character could compete with a dex 23 character if they configured their skill levels properly and made sound tactical decisions in combat. this is what i desired. shifting of combat skill levels to simulate a character fighting aggressively (high ocv), fighting defensively (a high dcv) or fighting balanced (split between ocv and dcv) with the added capability of increasing damage when an opening presented itself (attacking a stunned opponent who cannot mount a defense...coupe de grace!). this can be done with high dex characters as well, but causes a weird interaction with the rest of the physical world that should limit these characters in some fashion (unless they are justice league level of power). dialing back characteristics and replacing them with powers/skill levels has the benefit of the characters interacting with the rest of the world in a reasonable manner without having to push agents and normal villains to a superhuman level to compete.

[NuSoardGraphite]

  

- there was no easy, intuitive way to build a very agile character (say a wily Rogue or an Olympic gymnast) who was not also very combat-capable (that is, high DEX without high OCV and DCV)

Not at all true.

 

A high DEX character with no combat training has a -3 penalty to their OCV to do anything except hit people with their fists. a high DEX character who also has combat training should prove fearsome in battle.

 

 

- similarly, a character with high OCV and low DCV, or vice versa, had no easy, intuitive build structure 

Again, not true.

 

Buy combat skill levels. buy high dex with a physical limitation that penalizes DCV. Both writeups are simplistic in the extreme.

 

- a non-superhuman DEX meant vastly overpaying for combat ability (or, conversely, that a high DEX provided too great a cost benefit, or "why DEX was a God stat" in prior editions).  6e fixed that problem, but it certainly could have fixed the costing while maintaining the link by adjusting costs - the whole "figured characteristics war", so enough said on that).

DEX inflation was a major issue in pre 6th games because of its utility, this is very true. i solved this in my games by dialing back DEX and using combat skill levels and lightning reflexes a whole lot more, even in my superhero games. (Though i rarely gm'd supers). this is of course an old argument that has now been supplanted by the decoupling of figureds (which i dont agree with. i support the moderation method) but i disagree that these perceived problems were only solvable by decoupling OCV. That was only necessary if players refused to write up reasonable characters.*

 

*To be fair to most HERO players, the example characters in official writeups were written up in horribly unbalanced ways. players would logically use these templates as guidelines for writing up their own characters, so when they see that DEX-23 is the "average" dexterity and that defenses averaged around 25 (15res) then their own writeups would reflect this. as far as dex inflation was concerned, what i saw in the official writeups was overly high dexterity, even for characters who shouldnt have been high dex characters [grond, really?] and using dex to generate high ocv instead of using csl's to represent experience or high levels of skill. i noticed that the vast majority of hero players i played with followed this example. i examined this methodology and decided to follow the skill over characteristics route, first in regards to heroic level gameplay, which of course makes sense, but decided to explore that avenue when some of my players wished to do a supers game and it worked brilliantly to balance out the dex inflation. dex in my supers game i ran was between 15 and 23, with 23 being considered quite high and anything above that the purview of speedsters.

Characters who were experienced combatants had higher amounts of combat skill levels and this created an atmosphere where a dex 15 character could compete with a dex 23 character if they configured their skill levels properly and made sound tactical decisions in combat. this is what i desired. shifting of combat skill levels to simulate a character fighting aggressively (high ocv), fighting defensively (a high dcv) or fighting balanced (split between ocv and dcv) with the added capability of increasing damage when an opening presented itself (attacking a stunned opponent who cannot mount a defense...coupe de grace!). this can be done with high dex characters as well, but causes a weird interaction with the rest of the physical world that should limit these characters in some fashion (unless they are justice league level of power). dialing back characteristics and replacing them with powers/skill levels has the benefit of the characters interacting with the rest of the world in a reasonable manner without having to push agents and normal villains to a superhuman level to compete.

[Greywind]

   Not at all true.

 

I believe Clubs tended to be a free weapon familiarity, as well.

[UbiquitousRat]

Hey, guys - I've decided to shift to HERO 6e for the next session of our ongoing Fantasy campaign. That gives me 12 days (well, evenings, really) to pull stuff together.

 

I've posted two of the characters I am converting over to HERO here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/88195-helping-build-tikhon/?p=2332935

 

Feedback welcome. Also need help in porting over "+1 magickal items". Advice welcome!

[Hugh Neilson]

   Not at all true.

 

A high DEX character with no combat training has a -3 penalty to their OCV to do anything except hit people with their fists. a high DEX character who also has combat training should prove fearsome in battle.

 

  Again, not true.

 

Buy combat skill levels. buy high dex with a physical limitation that penalizes DCV. Both writeups are simplistic in the extreme.

 

DEX inflation was a major issue in pre 6th games because of its utility, this is very true. i solved this in my games by dialing back DEX and using combat skill levels and lightning reflexes a whole lot more, even in my superhero games. (Though i rarely gm'd supers). this is of course an old argument that has now been supplanted by the decoupling of figureds (which i dont agree with. i support the moderation method) but i disagree that these perceived problems were only solvable by decoupling OCV. That was only necessary if players refused to write up reasonable characters.*

 

*To be fair to most HERO players, the example characters in official writeups were written up in horribly unbalanced ways. players would logically use these templates as guidelines for writing up their own characters, so when they see that DEX-23 is the "average" dexterity and that defenses averaged around 25 (15res) then their own writeups would reflect this. as far as dex inflation was concerned, what i saw in the official writeups was overly high dexterity, even for characters who shouldnt have been high dex characters [grond, really?] and using dex to generate high ocv instead of using csl's to represent experience or high levels of skill. i noticed that the vast majority of hero players i played with followed this example. i examined this methodology and decided to follow the skill over characteristics route, first in regards to heroic level gameplay, which of course makes sense, but decided to explore that avenue when some of my players wished to do a supers game and it worked brilliantly to balance out the dex inflation. dex in my supers game i ran was between 15 and 23, with 23 being considered quite high and anything above that the purview of speedsters.

Characters who were experienced combatants had higher amounts of combat skill levels and this created an atmosphere where a dex 15 character could compete with a dex 23 character if they configured their skill levels properly and made sound tactical decisions in combat. this is what i desired. shifting of combat skill levels to simulate a character fighting aggressively (high ocv), fighting defensively (a high dcv) or fighting balanced (split between ocv and dcv) with the added capability of increasing damage when an opening presented itself (attacking a stunned opponent who cannot mount a defense...coupe de grace!). this can be done with high dex characters as well, but causes a weird interaction with the rest of the physical world that should limit these characters in some fashion (unless they are justice league level of power). dialing back characteristics and replacing them with powers/skill levels has the benefit of the characters interacting with the rest of the world in a reasonable manner without having to push agents and normal villains to a superhuman level to compete.

 

How do we split the quotes in this new forum SW?

 

Anyway, I do not agree that your suggestions are "intuitive".  That's a matter of opinion, though.  What is not is that this approach massively penalizes characters for whom combat skill is in concept and high DEX is not (or massively rewards those for whom high DEX and combat skill is in concept - toe-may-toe; toe-mah-toe).

 

I do not disagree that alternatives other than decoupling figured's were possible.  OCV and DCV could have been converted to figured's, and the pricing of the primary and figured characteristics, as well as various levels of "no figured", adjusted to balance them.  On reflection, I do agree with Steve's comments at the time that, if we have them balanced right, there is no real difference between decoupling entirely (and pricing without figured) and pricing with figured's, and decoupling is a lot easier to work out.  [i still disagree that DEX is worth twice as much as INT and PRE, but I'm not convinced whether DEX is overpriced, or INT and PRE, and their component parts, are underpriced - a topic for 7e, perhaps (ducks)]

 

To me, the problem is that the standards for Supers were set before "normal characteristic maxima" were considered.  In the interests of reverse compatibility, these have never been changed through the editions.  If 1e had established slow Supers had DEX 8 and SPD 2, average Supers had DEX 11-14 and SPD 3, fast Supes had DEX 15-20 and SPD 4, and reserved DEX 23-26 and SPD 5-6 for the "best of the best" Supers in this arena, builds would look very different now.  But that ship sailed with the 1st Ed sample characters!  They would then interact with the rest of the world in more or less the manner you describe.

[Lucius]

While I am not saying all this discussion of such matters as what impact DEX should have on combat, etc, shoucld not take place. I am however going to ask if it's okay for it to take place in another thread? I might even join in then.

 

Unless the Original Poster thinks we've actually exhausted the original topic?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

An inexhaustible source of palindromedary taglines

[Lucius]

How do we split

Like

the

so

quotes

You have to hit the button at the upper left, right over the "B" that is used for Bolding

 

Note that to end a quote you use the same old /quote in brackets, []

but to start one you apparently either copy and past the formula or use

 

quote name="nameinquotemarks" in brackets. []

 

for example

in this new forum SW?

What's an SW? Shipbuilding Works?

 

But that ship sailed with the 1st Ed sample characters!

Every time I hear "that ship sailed" I want to respond "Then build another ship!"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Now YOU'RE the one, Lucius, who's going way off topic!

[UbiquitousRat]

I don't feel the topic is exhausted, per se. I do agree that it has been side-tracked.

 

One issue that I feel needs addressing is the handling of what I will term "basic equipment". I wondered how stuff like (for fantasy) backpacks, sacks, iron pitons, rope, et al got handled by most GMs. Do you really stat it all out? Or do you just stat the stuff that is weird or combat-orientated, and fudge the rest?

 

This relates to my fears over sinking time into HERO prep that other games do for you.

 

Thoughts?

[Chris Goodwin]

One issue that I feel needs addressing is the handling of what I will term "basic equipment". I wondered how stuff like (for fantasy) backpacks, sacks, iron pitons, rope, et al got handled by most GMs. Do you really stat it all out? Or do you just stat the stuff that is weird or combat-orientated, and fudge the rest?

 

 

Most ordinary equipment is just sort of glossed over... we all know what a backpack or 50 feet of rope does, so they don't really need game stats.  Don't stress over whether a piece of equipment is statted out; the rule of thumb is "special" items (usually magic items, in a fantasy setting) need to have full stats, and everything else can be hand-waved.  

[Kraven Kor]

You can certainly build all of that as an exercise in how to build things; but yeah, don't overthink stuff where it isn't necessary.

[Ndreare]

I find stating out most simple things, and people are not wrth stating out. A rule of thumb is If it makes sense let naration control. We do not write up stats for the empire state building, but if we wanted to we could.

 

 

In just about every game I play, be it narative or rules heavy GURPS/HERO, we only rely on common sense. Thhe rules would get in the way.

 

As a note i also do this for a lot of simple encounters, no rolling for social skills and presense attacks, just asume the player characters are cool like ice.