Why run Hero 6th?

[JasonPacker]

A note on the DCV conversation:

 

While we typically think of DCV as being wholly dex-based, keep in mind HERO is "reason from effect."  A high DCV could be due to exceptional skill at blocking or rolling with a hit, it could be dodging, it could be partial desolidification if you wanted it to be.  DCV can be granted by a shield.  

 

A high-DCV character is not *automatically* an agile character dodging everything.  It could even just be sheer, dumb luck.  

 

Just a nit-pick on an earlier comment; sorry.

 

The only one I'd be worried about in your list of examples is the rolling with a hit. That implies that the blow landed, and if there were some carry-over effects, a high DCV would prevent them from happening.

 

Otherwise yes, DCV is any ability to avoid being hit by any attack. If it's specific kinds of attacks, you'll likely want combat skill levels instead - say to represent the swordsman who can always parry, he'd be better served with "Hand to Hand Combat" levels, so as not to make him impossible to shoot as well.

[Kraven Kor]

The "rolling with the hit" one - think of like Jackie Chan, where the blow will touch him, but he moves in such a way that it just slides by or rolls off without causing him injury.  Can be simulated *better* by Combat Luck, but if one wanted, you could have that defined as DCV as well.  

 

Or, that is my take on it; could very well be "wrong."

[JasonPacker]

The "rolling with the hit" one - think of like Jackie Chan, where the blow will touch him, but he moves in such a way that it just slides by or rolls off without causing him injury.  Can be simulated *better* by Combat Luck, but if one wanted, you could have that defined as DCV as well.  

 

Or, that is my take on it; could very well be "wrong."

 

I've not played out this example, or consulted my rulebooks, but what if the guy punching Jackie has a damage shield going? Does the failure to land the blow still expose Jackie to the damage shield? If not, should it - meaning, should rolling with the punch in fact just be PD or damage negation?

[Kraven Kor]

I've not played out this example, or consulted my rulebooks, but what if the guy punching Jackie has a damage shield going? Does the failure to land the blow still expose Jackie to the damage shield? If not, should it - meaning, should rolling with the punch in fact just be PD or damage negation?

 

I would rule (and this is just me) that would depend on the nature of the damage shield.  "My skin is covered with spikes" = Jackie can avoid the DS.  "Anything that touches me gets electrocuted" = Jackie cannot avoid in this fashion.

 

It was a bad example, but the point stands - DCV does not have to be "I have high dexterity and avoid attacks with agility."  I can simulate other skills, abilities, talents, or even gear that "keep me from being hit."

[JasonPacker]

I would rule (and this is just me) that would depend on the nature of the damage shield.  "My skin is covered with spikes" = Jackie can avoid the DS.  "Anything that touches me gets electrocuted" = Jackie cannot avoid in this fashion.

 

It was a bad example, but the point stands - DCV does not have to be "I have high dexterity and avoid attacks with agility."  I can simulate other skills, abilities, talents, or even gear that "keep me from being hit."

 

Agreed. It is a perfect candidate for "design from effect" - I've seen it be precognition, teleportation, mirror image spells, and I think I recall a character who could use a low level of mind control to make you think you were aiming for her, but not actually.

[Chris Goodwin]

Slow implies low DCV to me. 6e actually makes this harder to get from reading the rules, because it offers no clues as to what CV means (I have said this before, but the 6e fanboys didn't or wouldn't understand the point).

Can we quit it with this? Please?

[Tasha]

Slow implies low DCV to me. 6e actually makes this harder to get from reading the rules, because it offers no clues as to what CV means (I have said this before). In <6e to get high DCV you bought DEX (in fact, that was the main reason people bought DEX and the reason DEX was kind of a God stat), which gave you a clue as to what kind of character should have it. Now it's less obvious that DCV is probably closer to what you think of as DEX than DEX is.

Defensive Combat Value is the character's ability to not be hit. AKA the Avoidance stat. It CAN indicate high Dexterity, but it can also represent small size, Combat experience and many other special effects that equal not being hit.

6e1 "Defensive Combat Value represents how difficult it is to hit a character in combat. It factors into Attack Rolls made against him, but does not have a Characteristic Roll."

 

Offensive Combat Value is similar it's used to see if you can hit your target with a non-Mental attack. It can also indicate High Dexterity, but can also represent Native talent in combat, Combat Expertise, Precognitive vision etc.

6e1"Offensive Combat Value represents a character’s general accuracy in combat.It’s used to make Attack Rolls, but does not have a Characteristic Roll"

 

Dexterity does two things currently. It places you on the Dex chart for who goes first and last. It also is the Characteristic roll for over half the skills in the system.

 

The special effects listed are just a few from the top of my head. Once you stop thinking about old figured characteristics relationships, you can get into the real nitty gritty of understanding the real special effects of your character's stats. Whether they are primary (ie have a Characteristic roll) or secondary (everything else).

[PaycheckHero]

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.

 

This is not a difficult concept to understand.

[bigbywolfe]

The concept that your "dodge stat" is different from your Dex/Agility stat is not a difficult concept to understand either.

 

Either way this is both off topic and edition war/figured characteristic complaints that simply don't belong here. You want to re-ignite the fig-char war go start another thread.

[PaycheckHero]

If it's igniting the edition war to comment on a simple fact, then some people have problems that go far beyond games. I don't care what edition you play; in fact <5e didn't do a very good job of hinting on some of the other figureds (notably spd, which is probably better independent as in 6e than misleadingly suggesting that what you get from dex alone is typically enough as previously), it just wasn't relevant at that post. I don't actually argue for or against either edition, I would happily play or run any edition from 4th on (and probably wouldn't mind 3rd, I just don't have enough experience with it), but I'm also not going to write a bunch of disclaimers on every post that touches on the obvious differences simply to satisfy anyone who who has enough emotional problems to think that commenting on the obvious is edition fighting.

 

I suppose I could put "for emotionally secure adults only" in my signature, however.

[bigbywolfe]

Name calling and insults. Yup, you're definitely more "emotuonally secure" than everyone that happens to disagree with you..

[Greywind]

SPD that you get from DEX is sufficient, IF that is the nature of the game that the GM wants to run.

[Spence]

Hi, hello, and welcome!

 

I own Hero System 6th. I am kinda drawn to the system, but fear that (as GM) it's a bucket load of work to run a game. I picture me sitting up to the wee-hours designing NPCs, designing weapons, and basically engineering every minute detail of equipment needed for my game. And then I'd need to persuade my group that it's a) easy to play, and worth the effort to learn.

 

My question: Why should we run Hero 6th? What does Hero give me that makes the benefits outweigh the effort?

 

Secondary question: If you persuade me, what can I do to make GMing easy?

 

To get back to the OP here is my 2 cents.

 

The biggest reason I always return to Hero is that it offers something you won't find elsewhere (though there are some other systems that are joining HERO).  And that is the ability to build unique and one of a kind anything.

 

But the big mistake most new HERO gamers make is assuming that HERO is a ready to play game.  And before my fellow Hero'philes blow a fuse, I shall explain.

 

I will use computer games as a way to make my explanation.  Think of Skyrim, XCom or Call of Duty.  You make a character from pre-designed selections (or just take what was made for you) and then you play the game in accordance with the 'game logic' put in place by the designers.    Now those designers wrote the game using code that you cannot access or see.  There are some people out there that build mods that allow you to do different things in the various game worlds, but playability and balance are more by 'mod'er luck" than by game design.

 

D&D, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu and so on are all games that were written like  Skyrim and such by the game designers who usually do not release their source reference documents that are instrumental in creating balanced supplements and additional material.    And even when hey do release the SRD, if you look closely the SRD doesn't actually have everything.  

 

While it is absolutely true that an experienced DM can create new things for the games, they are usually limited to carefully designed charts for the creation process or they must wing it. 

 

And before everyone jumps in with all the billions of exceptions that they are itching to roll out.  I am talking in very very broad generalities, not specific's.

 

Continuing on.  I remember that AD&D 2nd edition ( I think) actually had a class creation system in the DM handbook that was designed to all DM's to create new character classes.  The funny think was you could not work up the existing core classes using it, they didn't add up. 

 

HERO on the other hand is not a complete game+setting.  It is for lack of a better word, game-code.  It is the code used to write the game.   Because of this people that are used to being told what to do in an RPG, sometimes have a problem accepting that they need to decide what to do and then define it to the players. 

 

The whole "what is DCV" conversation is a prime example.  For most RPG's out there DCV has a common and limited interpretation on how it should be viewed.   HERO on the other hand has been written so that it can not only support the common view but also any other view that might come up to include things the HERO authors may not have thought of.   

 

In the initial editions of HERO (1st through 5th Edition), DCV was based on the characters Dex divided by 3.  That was because HERO was following the herd and basing DCV on a characters physical agility as defined by the stat Dex.  But after 30+ years of play, there was a realization that linking stats, while convenient and logical, also had the drawback of preventing the ability to implement nonstandard concepts or models.   So they eliminated figured stats.    There have been volumes of arguments on whether this was good or bad, I prefer to say "it just is".  But now we can define DCV as being a representation of many things and not just physical.   Luck, Psi, toughness.  All these things can have contributed to the DCV.   The verbatim definition is "Defensive Combat Value represents how difficult it is to hit a character in combat."   But what does that mean?  Does "to hit" mean hit at all or effectively hit? 

 

But that brings us to the crux of the matter.   You,  as the GM in HERO have to make those decisions, and none of the decisions you make are wrong.   Because it is your world. 

 

That said, when you read the snippy discussion (or argument ) about DCV, just remember that they are all actually right.   They just don't seem to want to admit it......

 

HERO is a source code that allows you to build pretty much any game world you can imagine and keep it balanced.  But you as a GM must define that world. 

 

Which brings me to the question.  Why play HERO?  Because I can create MY world or I can create MY character.  Not just the nearest thing that a prepackaged set of options allows.

[bluesguy]

To get back to the OP here is my 2 cents.

 

 

Excellent post.

 

 

The verbatim definition is "Defensive Combat Value represents how difficult it is to hit a character in combat."   But what does that mean?  Does "to hit" mean hit at all or effectively hit?

 

Exactly.  And for some characters it means "Nah Nah Nah you can't hit me" and for other characters it means "Clang you just hit my shield and it didn't hurt one little bit".

[pbemguy]

Questions:

- Has anyone done a Hero Glorantha conversion? I could jive to that idea.

 

 

If Runequest and Heroquest are "the same" as Glorantha (if I understand correctly, I think they are), then there is this for Hero 5e:

 

http://mojobob.com/roleplay/hero/fantasy/hq/

[Chris Goodwin]

That was because HERO was following the herd and basing DCV on a characters physical agility as defined by the stat Dex.

This is also not helpful. Can we all just let the Great Figured Characteristics Debate rest? Accept that yes, they make a lot of sense in play but were broken cost-wise? Or that some people think they're pie and ice cream and others think they're Pure Evil, and just go on with playing some HERO?

 

I don't care what edition you play, as long as you play, and if we can get new folks playing, all the better. If you want to play 5e or 6e or 4e, it's All. Freaking. HERO System. If I'm going to run, I'm going to run 6e, but if someone says to me "Hey Chris, I'm going to run 4e, wanna play?" I'll be all "Sure, let me get my books!" I might even run some Robot Warriors, but you knew that already.

 

It's all good, and the sniping is unbecoming of us as a community. Rant over, and be excellent to each other.

 

Edit: Apologies to Spence for taking part of his message out of context and using it as a springboard for the rant. I stand behind the rant itself, but taking aim at one line out of the post was uncalled for.

[UbiquitousRat]

To get back to the OP here is my 2 cents. The biggest reason I always return to Hero is that it offers something you won't find elsewhere (though there are some other systems that are joining HERO).  And that is the ability to build unique and one of a kind anything. But the big mistake most new HERO gamers make is assuming that HERO is a ready to play game.

This is a very helpful 2 cents, Spence, thank you! It's good to see someone bring things back to the core question of why play Hero.

 

HERO... is not a complete game+setting.  It is for lack of a better word, game-code.  It is the code used to write the game.   Because of this people that are used to being told what to do in an RPG, sometimes have a problem accepting that they need to decide what to do and then define it to the players. 

 ...

But that brings us to the crux of the matter.   You,  as the GM in HERO have to make those decisions, and none of the decisions you make are wrong.   Because it is your world. 

...

HERO is a source code that allows you to build pretty much any game world you can imagine and keep it balanced.  But you as a GM must define that world. 

 

Which brings me to the question.  Why play HERO?  Because I can create MY world or I can create MY character.  Not just the nearest thing that a prepackaged set of options allows.

For me, the appeal is to create what I want AND maintain balance.

 

Having tried to write my own games, because existing ones were too restrictive or used a one-die randomiser (which I feel is too random), I have run into problems of essentially out-of-whack effects. The effort in either writing a game cold or modding a game to fit my ideas is a lot of work. Hero looks like a lot of work too... but now I am wondering if, because a lot of stuff is "out there" to adapt AND because I have access to the 'game-code', I can actually make something better with maybe less effort. Or at least less worry about it not working.

 

Thanks, Spence, for the useful analogy.

[PaycheckHero]

Name calling and insults. Yup, you're definitely more "emotuonally secure" than everyone that happens to disagree with you..

I'm perfectly happy for you to hold whatever opinion will discourage you from trying to get me to cooperate with the version censorship brigade.

[PaycheckHero]

SPD that you get from DEX is sufficient, IF that is the nature of the game that the GM wants to run.

Not really. It's easier in 6e to tell beginners "hmm, you should buy about N speed" than it is to explain the special rounding rule for that stat only, and then probably (in most campaigns I've seen, excepting some supers campaigns with a lower SPD range than the CU published material) still suggest buying a point or two on top of it. 6e removes one of the papercuts involved in making your first character when you don't know what is going on.

 

It's extremely frustrating that the fanboys of particular versions are so all-or-nothing that everyone else is assumed to be equally silly.

[ghost-angel]

It's extremely frustrating that the fanboys of particular versions are so all-or-nothing that everyone else is assumed to be equally silly.

 

This kind of comment is inflammatory and does not belong as part of the discussion. I'm kindly asking you as one member of the community to another to refrain from this kind of language. Thank you.

[PaycheckHero]

But the big mistake most new HERO gamers make is assuming that HERO is a ready to play game.

This is an excellent way to explain it.

 

In the initial editions of HERO (1st through 5th Edition), DCV was based on the characters Dex divided by 3.  That was because HERO was following the herd and basing DCV on a characters physical agility as defined by the stat Dex.  But after 30+ years of play, there was a realization that linking stats, while convenient and logical, also had the drawback of preventing the ability to implement nonstandard concepts or models.

It isn't clear to me that it was so much following the herd as encouraging characteristics to be correlated in a way that matches its source material. Point costs aren't fundamentally about balance, exactly--they're about what kinds of characters are encouraged and discouraged. I suspect they encouraged characters whose initiative, ability to learn dexterity skills, ease of getting a hit, and difficulty of being hit were all correlated, because that's what they saw in comic books, and since there is a perfectly logical argument for what they did I don't know that it's fair to simply assume that they were only following D&D precedent. But I suppose we'd have to ask Steve and George to know for sure.

 

In any event, it's certainly correct that the linking caused problems with characters that didn't fit those correlations. The clearest example are all the characters with a higher OCV to reflect fighting still, including a lot of bricks that don't appear dex-based. I think they knew that, and their solution was CSLs. That works for some concepts (the high-OCV bricks at least), but 6e certainly does handle odder examples better.

 

But now we can define DCV as being a representation of many things and not just physical.   Luck, Psi, toughness.

You always could--it was just inefficient because of the cost structure. I don't think 6e gives you much you couldn't get before, it just refrains from giving the huge cost discount for characters that fit particular profiles (you could almost call those profiles hidden classes). So in practice, you're exactly correct, even if *in principle* it was already possible.

 

That said, when you read the snippy discussion (or argument ) about DCV, just remember that they are all actually right.   They just don't seem to want to admit it......

I would appreciate not being assumed to be either one of the version fanboys, so that if you wish to hang me you can do so for what I say, and not what someone else said. My point was strictly about *naming*, not mechanics at all. I take no final position at this time, but 6e mechanics are probably an overall improvement. That's not relevant to the thread, but I say it so you will not assume that because I don't like the 6e fanboys I must be a 5e fanboy.

 

My point was simply that it was probably a mistake to retain the same names for the primaries, because they are getting farther and farther from the standard meaning in the hobby as a whole, as well as the meaning of "primary characteristic." We already give new players a lot of papercuts on the way to understanding, and I would like to not invent new ones. "DCV" is a good name because it's clearly a Hero-specific technical term--people know to ask what it means and listen to the answer. "Dex" is becoming a poor name because people assume that we're part of the larger community and speak the common language, which is not so true anymore.

 

I only make those points because I dislike version censorship even more than the all-or-nothing version fanboys. We have a lot of stuff that the OP will have to learn, and when our naming is confusing we have to explain it. Dex is confusing, so it merits a little warning post-it note, which I gave. Now version censorship has actually brought up issues I never mentioned and led to a wider discussion, but I thought your treatment was good and hopefully enlightening to the OP so maybe it's all good.

 

If you don't get misled by the characteristic names, keep the "some assembly required" nature of hero in mind that you described so well, and get your head around effect vs. special effect so you can do the assembly, I think you've got what you need. Well, except maybe for knowing the scale, what is high and what is low for a particular point level and style of campaign, but I think the OP is getting that too.

[PaycheckHero]

This kind of comment is inflammatory and does not belong as part of the discussion. I'm kindly asking you as one member of the community to another to refrain from this kind of language. Thank you.

How about kindly not actually doing it to me?

 

Here is a boring little story. When 6e came out I'd been inactive for quite a while, and I came to the hero boards to see if I really wanted to bother with it. The people who thought every change in 6e was perfect in every way were annoying, as were the people who thought every change was horrible. I call them fanboys because that's a pretty accurate and well-understood description of all the "it's all good" and "it's all bad" posts I had to wade through, though of course it's merely a shorthand of convenience to avoid the extra typing I'm using in this post. Would you prefer the more humorous (in English) "version otaku?"

 

In any event, they obscured some things a bit, but they didn't stop me from at least learning what the changes were and some of the effects they have. The people who *really* made it hard were all the people who said "we can't talk about that." So I have no interest in censoring discussion of things people may need to know--things *I* needed to know at the time and had to drag out in spite of the "don't talk about it" mantra. The various features of 6e (the topic, since that's what the OP has and the only version in print) have consequences, good, bad, or mixed, just like the features of 5e, Pathfinder, or any other game in existence. I had to learn them one by one, first to decide if I even wanted 6e and then to start learning how to use it. The OP has to learn how to use 6e too, including the terminology whether it be clear or misleading. Why make it needlessly hard for him?

 

The biggest impediment to actually pointing out features and stumbling blocks continues to be the "don't talk about it" mantra, along with the assumption that any attempt to do so makes you one of the all-or-nothing people advocating for a version. We've had both on this thread, and it's caused much more obscurity than anything else. I'd prefer not actually doing that, but people will do as they will. But I would appreciate not being assumed to be a version advocate, and most of all I would like people to just reconcile themselves to the fact that I won't help with the censorship program and quit suggesting I do if there is a point that actually bears on how you learn and play hero. I can't make anyone not engage in aggressive silence, but I can refrain myself.

 

And interestingly, the digression (based on assuming I meant something other than terminology) seems to have produced a very nice post or two on effect vs. special effect and using Hero as a toolkit, which I think is on-topic and hopefully very useful for the OP (broader and more useful than my much smaller point about one misleading technical term). The "we can't talk about it posts," on the other hand, haven't produced anything useful, but they have unfortunately drug in all the issues they claim not to want to talk about. I suppose we could call it the "Banned in Boston" effect.

[ghost-angel]

How about kindly not actually doing it to me?

 

I call them fanboys because that's a pretty accurate and well-understood description of all the "it's all good" and "it's all bad" posts I had to wade through, though of course it's merely a shorthand of convenience to avoid the extra typing I'm using in this post. Would you prefer the more humorous (in English) "version otaku?"

 

How about not calling them anything vaguely insulting. Let's try that for a while.

[UbiquitousRat]

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.

 

Actually, although many people have been very helpful, the only distracting thing has been this obviously quite personal and acrimonious subplot about "versions". Frankly, I don't care because I have 6e. Not 5e, 4e, 3e, 2e, or 1e. 6e. Just that. Sorry if that's a offence to some. To me, it looks pretty cool... once I figure it out some more, anyhow.

 

PaycheckHero, and several others like mhd and Tess and Chris Goodwin... oh, to name but the ones I can immediately remember - these guys have been helpful. Muchly. Lots. Especially pointing out the difference between Dex and DCV, actually. (My apologies if I forgot your post and that makes me seem ungrateful... I'm not, I just suck at remembering names)

 

Now then... Before the "OP" (hey, I realised that is referring to me after 3 posts - smart, huh?) decides that his first impressions of these forums ("awesome, these guys are a credit to Hero Games") were wrong, can we get back to the core question and the sub-topics that directly relate to "why should I play HERO?"

 

Might I suggest that offended parties could message each other privately, thus sparing the rest of us from their ire? Oh, no... I just realised I am gonna get flamed for that. Sorry. Really. Well, mostly. I don't wanna inflame you, but I do wanna talk fun and games.

 

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

[Simon]

Let's do things this way:

 

PaycheckHero:  stop posting in this thread.  Now.  You've been warned for one of your posts, but you continue to push the bounds (as well as the buttons of other members).

 

Everyone else:  cool it.  It's a game.  Said game has different versions, each with variations on the same core rules.  Debate the merits of various changes all you want, but lay off of each other -- you are all playing the same GAME.