7th Edition thoughts

[Hyper-Man]

Although the train has already left the station...

 

I often wonder if competitors like SJG/GURPS made that kind of judgement on each series of books they published over the years?  It doesn't seem like it.

 

At some point a company centered around a generic RPG system needs to accept some losses in individual arenas of competition as a cost of advertising the system itself across ALL the different arenas (genres) to get the message to the widest possible audience. It's a form of long term investment.  If I ever win the lottery....

[Steve]

GURPS had the advantage of being supported by revenue streams from products like Munchkin, or so I've heard.

[bigbywolfe]

Hyper-Man, I'm not saying Hero should stop making fantasy stuff.  I'm just pointing out that  saying "the reason fantasy stuff didn't sell well is because they didn't make enough" is completely false.

[Hyper-Man]

I understand that.  Nobody has the bankroll to go up against Wizards of the Coast or Piazo these days it seems.  I wonder if the playing field was so tilted back in the late 80's and early 90's?  Anyway, HERO has probably got, for bettor or for worse, a little bit of an elitist reputation among the greater RPG community. Part of the reason for that is that HERO has never directly went after NEW gamers.  It's always relied upon the stream of players dissatisfied with cookie cutter systems.  Not a bad strategy but surely a little conservative. I believe that there is no reason that HERO couldn't find a way to make it's core mechanics available in a licensed but definitely moneymaking manner to then let other game-world developers go wild.  The D20 phenomenon ultimately backfired (Pathfinder) but that alone doesn't mean there wasn't merit to the core idea. It could happen....

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah when 3rd edition D&D was put out, nobody anticipated a 3rd party company would outdo them.  D&D ruled the roost.  Things change over time; pulp used to sell really well and now it doesn't.  The only way things can have a chance to change is to actually push forward, and the present licensing system of Hero makes that possible even with projects that the prevailing wisdom insists can't work or has no chance.

[schir1964]

7th Edition? Hmmm... let me think about that for a bit...

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zslane]

The Hero System as we know it is not for everyone. In order to make it appealing to and digestable by everyone, I believe you would have to change it in ways that make it Not the Hero System. There are plenty of systems out there already that are Not the Hero System. Please, let's not encourage Hero Games to make the Hero System one of them.

[mhd]

Instead of totally rebranding, one could look for a similar systems and try to get a "child" system that can focus on new things, wherease both HERO and the new partner system could remain the same. Y'know, some kind of "Union" system.

[Greywind]

Like a fusion?

[mhd]

Like a fusion?

Not edgy enough. Can you make this pop, more web 2.0?

[L. Marcus]

... Fursion?

[ghost-angel]

Stop it.

 

Just stop.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree with not changing Hero D&D style to try to match the perceived market or what people think will sell best.  But certainly making small changes that do not alter the core product to make it easier for new players to pick up.  Things like using "Complications" instead of "Disadvantages" fall into that category for me: that way its not likely to be confused with advantages.  But changing how powers work to a significant degree is probably a step too far.

[Nolgroth]

Fuzion was not a bad system for being prematurely ripped from the womb. I would have loved to have seen what could have become of it, were care and consideration given to completing it as a rules set. From my perspective, it was easier to grok than Hero. Ultimately though, it died a crib death due to lack of attention. I still contend that it makes a great "beer & pretzels" kind of system. I would still only ever run Superheroic games using Fuzion. Hero could learn something from the old Dials 'n' Switches model. There is a little bit of that in the Hero system already but I think it could be much more explicit. To run a Superheroic game, use these settings. To run a dark, gritty, low-powered Cold War era spy game, use these settings.

 

One of the traps that I've fallen in is trying to make it so that characters from a player's "character binder" could just be dropped into one of my games. The truth of the matter is, even with all its generalization, Hero GMs still put their own twist on a setting that customizes the characters for that setting. Case in point, during the whole Gemini Ascendant game and the others that I ran on MapTool, combat dragged severely with varying Speed values. The higher the Speed value range, the more it lagged. So I put forward to the group to set the Speed at 2 and let DEX/Lightning Reflexes be the determining factor for who goes first. It worked pretty well. Could those same characters then be lifted out and put into a similar game? Nominally yes, but if the traditional Speed 3-5 for normals range was being used, they would be at a deficit. Even more so if that range went further.

 

The point there is that you are never going to pull Rick Grimes from the Walking Dead and plop him down next to Silver Age Superman. The two genres are just so very different that it would do an injustice to both characters. We need the Hero mindset to realize that there are vast differences between genres and show us how to adjust the system to the genre we want to play. To be fair, there are things that already do this (Bleeding, Hit Locations, END cost for Strength, the alternate Strength chart from APG, etc.). The trick is folding those things into a guide for new players/GM's. Old hacks have a pretty good idea for where we can bend, break and suture back together the system for our games. If we want to market to a NEW audience, we need to take that collected knowledge and pass it along. We need to show new players how to actually use the tools in this kit to make the game they want to run/play.

 

And I use "we" as if I have any decision making power in whatever 7th Edition becomes. 

[zslane]

I think the days are long gone when Hero Games saw the multi-genre aspect/potential of the system as deserving of official published support. Their own market research indicates that most Hero customers only play one genre (and it's either superheroes or, to a much lesser extent, fantasy). I think you are asking them to address a problem they would rather have solved by the player community itself. Which, given the experience level and passion of the community, isn't such a bad idea.

 

But before Hero Games embarks on a 7th edition, I think they ought to finish the 6th edition core library first. But they've already abandoned 6E1/6E2 and the core library, so that's not going to happen. You might as well just get used to the idea that Champions Complete is probably as close as you're going to get to a 7th edition.

[prestidigitator]

Looks like a long conversation.  Haven't read it all, but here are my thoughts:

• Simpler: Yes.  Always.  Look for the reasoning behind the current mechanics, look for commonality, and where possible make the more general, "meta-rule," that covers more ground with simple, consistent logic.  (Example: HKA and RKA merged into just KA, albeit with different options; why not take it a step further and merge HA and Blast with KA?)  What is "doing damage" worth in terms of system elements and points?  How much better is it to avoid defenses than to clash against them?  Build the more general rule and drop the specifics.  A picture is worth 1000 words; an idea is worth 1000 individual cases; an equation is worth 1000 data points....  If you can relate damage to velocity generally and then apply it in some manner to both Move Throughs and falling damage, great!  Spell it out once and then refer to it anywhere you need to.
• Generic: Yes.  Similar to the simplicity argument, the more ground you can cover with the same mechanics, the better.  Where this fails is, of course, making players and GMs do more of the work to bring back the feel of a specific system or setting or genre.  Hero covers this very well with source books.  The less work you want to do yourself, the more pre-made stuff you can collect.  So I do feel the base system could become more generic still, decreasing size and complexity.  A big example is Skills: drop the whole list and instead have mechanics for categories of Skills; Skills based on Attributes; Skills with sub-skills; Familiarities and Skill Levels....  Attributes could honestly go this way too (possible merger or meta-mechanics for OCV/OECV, DCV/DECV, PD/ED, maybe even Stun/Body), though there is probably less need.
• Further Divorce of Mechanics from Special Effects: Pretty good already, obviously.  But there are a few things like the physical/energy/mental divide that could still use a little work IMO.  Allow for the current way, but don't require or assume it.
• Simplify (Multiply) Modifiers: In particular, there's a lot of complication around taking certain modifiers together, like Autofire and AoE or AVLD.  I've always thought that if we went to multiplicative Advantages and Limitations (where Advantages are >1 and Limitaitons are <1) it would help to solve this problem, by making them influence each others' effect on Active Points/Total Cost naturally rather than essentially being independent.  For example, a multiplier of 1.5*1.5=2.25 vs 1+(0.5+0.5)=2.0 shows that if you start stacking up loads of Advantages or Limitations, the cost can start to change dramatically.  I think it also makes a little more, "real-world/logical," sense; it's worth this much times more to hit this many times rather than that, or ignore defenses in this way, or....
• Emphasize and Empower Skills: While I'm not fond of having the fixed list of Skills as a part of the base system like I said above, I'm very in favor of making Skills useful in all varieties of games.  Even in Superheroic games I think they should play a big role.  That doesn't mean more point investment, necessarily.  Some games might have fewer Skills that are generally more useful, while other games have bunches of Skills with more opportunity for specialization.  General rules or guidelines for how Skills are used and what kind of benefit you can get out of them would be good.  This could come in the form of loose relations between Skills and Powers, perhaps (e.g. "If you make your Skill roll by a margin of X, that is roughly equivalent to a difference of Y Active Points worth of a Power, or Z worth of Modifiers...").  Another good one is de-coupling Skills from Attributes.  Record the level of each Skill (Unskilled, Familiarity, +1, etc.), and then allow that to be combined with any Attribute roll.  So you could roll Dexterity+Survival in one circumstance, and Intelligence+Survival in another, and perhaps 11+Survival in another where no Attribute seems appropriate.
• "Open Source": No idea how practical this is in a business sense for a relatively small competitor, but it's a direction I'd like to see the system go if it can.  Make the system itself free and open-source (distribute a free PDF with a permissive redistribution and/or derivative work document license).  The more generic the system is (as above), the more valuable source material and genre-specific guidelines are.  WotC is doing this more and more.  Maybe they can get away with it more because they are big.  But in any case when it happens, it is a big boon to the gamer community and serves to increase the player base.  It also encourages a lot of creativity and community involvement.  Open Source is not just for software anymore!

[PeterLind]

Hello guys:  I am new to posting but I have played Champions since 1^st edition, with most of my time spent on this game in the 80s and 90s.  My current edition of choice is a house-ruled 4^th edition game.  I still allow some legacy stuff from 3^rd edition and have brought in some new stuff from 5^th and 6^th edition.  I am open to characters of any edition, because the game plays pretty much the same at the table, regardless of the edition of the characters.

 

1. Will there ever be a 7th edition of Hero System?

Of course I could never know that.  Interpreted as whether or not I think the system needs another edition, I think no.  New rules, if any, could be introduced through supplements that would be considered optional.

2. If there is, should the system move towards simplification and less complexity, or towards extending the modularity introduced in 6th?

I think the game would still benefit from optional rules modules that make character creation easier.  I would like to see a system where character creation is so streamlined that a character can be put together in a half-hour or less.  The player is asked a set of questions regarding the conception of the character, from background, origin of powers, skills training, etc. and after the questions are answered, you have a basic starting character.  This might be ideal for more low powered games where the characters are just discovering their powers for the first time.

The skills can be even more distinctly bundled by profession/occupation than what has already been introduced in Champions Complete.  This option is then moved to the front as part of the general character creation process.  

Perks:  Characters could be assumed to have perks appropriate to their background without having to spend points.  Any special perks that the player really would want to be able to invoke during play could be bought with points.  So it would be easy to skip this section when first learning how to create a character.

Talents:  Talents could be moved into the Powers section with the special effect based upon special training or weird/supernatural background.  Some of the Talents would be properly listed under existing powers.  For example, light sleep could fall under the Enhanced Senses section.

Powers:  For ease of character creation, the player should be prompted to pick/buy powers from separate menus that are grouped by type:  Offense, Defense, Movement, Sensory, etc. 

Overall, I think this might make the game a bit easier to learn for new players.

 

3. Are there any glaring "legacy" mechanics from previous editions crying out for revamping and revision?

Haymaker/Kick:  My haymakers/kicks are -2 OCV, -2 DCV.  This is more in line with the martial offensive strike.  You will start seeing less haymakers in play . . .

Speed Chart:  I do not always start on Phase 12, but start combat on a random segment.  Characters are allowed to abort on phase 12.  I do not encourage saving actions to attack or defend so as to take advantage of the speed chart.  The action should be announced on your Dex. 

Hit Location Table:  With the new 1d3 stun modifier in place, I would change the hit location table so that it works for killing attacks like normal attacks (except for the body multiplier).  So for each attack, you would always roll your killing damage and stun modifier.  You then roll on the hit location table to determine the modifers to body and stun.  As for normal attacks, your stun multiplier is x 2 for the head; but use the current hit location table for body x (i.e. x 2 body).  

Multi-Powers:  I would remove the rule that allows slots to be bought as “ultra” or “fixed” slots.  I think it makes new powers too cheap.  This concept would be better accomplished through the existing “full power only” limitation which can be applied to a power. 

I also would like to see Multi-Powers more strictly defined.  The powers have to be closely related in all ways, including the origin/source of the power and how the power is used.  An example of a good multi-power would be a gun, an armor suit, a utility belt, mutant fire powers, etc.

Elemental Controls:  I liked the concept of Elemental Control because it allowed a player to visualize a suite of related powers for a point break.  The new limitation that replaces this makes the concept kind of lost in the mix, making it harder for a new player to take advantage of this useful character creation tool.  In the past, all powers in an EC had to have the same special effect, which made the powers fitting under the framework narrowly defined.  I think I would broaden this to include any powers which have the same origin/source of power (i.e. mutant, etc.)

 

4. Should the product be less "generic" and more oriented towards specific settings?

I can see Champions covering all modern, pulp and comic book games from renaissance to post-modern.  With that core, only supplements regarding the specific genres are needed.  So I would like to see a new Pulp Hero and Dark Champions/Danger International/Action Hero that builds from the Champions rule book.  I think that there needs to be more action/publishing activity in the Champions Universe. 

If Fantasy Hero or Star Hero are promoted, then only promote one setting for each at this point.  For Fantasy Hero, a swords & sorcery (i.e. low magic) setting.  For Star Hero, a space opera setting inspired by classic space opera / sword & planet writers. 

Champions needs to find its niche in the market and then hold on to it.

 

5. Should there be more characteristics? Fewer? About the same number? What about rules for optional stats?

I think the number of Characteristics is fine.  I wonder why Dex had to be x2 as compare to the other characteristics.  It only helps folks act first and to make Dex rolls, Str also has two basic benefits, lifting ability and Str rolls.  I think Dex should cost x 1 now.

 

6. Should complications be revamped, or even removed/made optional? Should power limitations and complications be merged, at least in some instances?

These are fine.  I would suggest trying to cut down the number of power advantages to a basic core (the one’s most commonly used) so that a new player is not given “too many choices” at the outset.  An alternative means of organization or a useful table of the most commonly used limitations might also accomplish this.

 

7. Should costing be simplified? Should costing for advantages and limitations be made more granular(i.e., +/- 0.1)?

I think things are fine as they are (i.e a combination of advantages and adders).  How about the opposite of adders from the limitations list that reduce the cost of a power by a certain amount of points?

[Tasha]

Yeah when 3rd edition D&D was put out, nobody anticipated a 3rd party company would outdo them.  D&D ruled the roost.  Things change over time; pulp used to sell really well and now it doesn't.  The only way things can have a chance to change is to actually push forward, and the present licensing system of Hero makes that possible even with projects that the prevailing wisdom insists can't work or has no chance.

The reason that Pathfinder came into being has more to do with the perfect storm between dissatisfied 3.x players and the HIGHLY restrictive 4th edition licencing. Which made many companies look toward other systems and to build clones and build stuff for those clones. WotC really shot itself in the foot by trying to put the D20 OGL genie back in the bottle.

[Hugh Neilson]

The complaint wasn't that STR and DEX were too cost-effective, but that players were buying them up for no reason (and I agree that "because it is cheap to do so" does not constitute a good reason). In any decently run campaign, the GM will basically tell the players that it doesn't matter how few points STR or DEX may cost, if their character concepts don't justify the high values, they don't get to buy them that high. And if their concepts do justify the higher values, then the fact that they cost fewer points than they could (with a different cost formula) is largely irrelevent to this particular complaint. Said characters might have a few more points to spend somewhere else, but they won't have excessively high STR and DEX for no reason.

 

I suggest they were not buying them up "for no reason".  They were buying them up because any other approach to designing the character they envision, which includes being comparably effective to other characters, required they buy up STR and DEX.  Hero is supposed to be a universal system which allows you to play any character you can imagine.  Implicit in that promise is that there will not be a couple of concepts which are automatically more effective for the same point costs, and especially not more effective at doing the exact same thing (be it hitting, avoiding being hit, inflicting damage, or as narrow  just picking locks) for the same point cost.

 

If we have three characters who each have a 10 OCV, an 8 DCV and a 12d6 normal attack with no range, then I suggest these exactly equal abilities should appropriately carry an exactly equal cost.  One of them should not pay less, or get more, due to concept.  The concepts should instead be priced appropriately.

[pinecone]

I suggest they were not buying them up "for no reason".  They were buying them up because any other approach to designing the character they envision, which includes being comparably effective to other characters, required they buy up STR and DEX.  Hero is supposed to be a universal system which allows you to play any character you can imagine.  Implicit in that promise is that there will not be a couple of concepts which are automatically more effective for the same point costs, and especially not more effective at doing the exact same thing (be it hitting, avoiding being hit, inflicting damage, or as narrow  just picking locks) for the same point cost.

 

If we have three characters who each have a 10 OCV, an 8 DCV and a 12d6 normal attack with no range, then I suggest these exactly equal abilities should appropriately carry an exactly equal cost.  One of them should not pay less, or get more, due to concept.  The concepts should instead be priced appropriately.

I strongly agree costs and rules should have no factors based on special effects, and to me "concept" is a special effect, "I am a SEAL" should not get a price break vs " "I am a talented armature"

[Ndreare]

If we have three characters who each have a 10 OCV, an 8 DCV and a 12d6 normal attack with no range, then I suggest these exactly equal abilities should appropriately carry an exactly equal cost.  One of them should not pay less, or get more, due to concept.  The concepts should instead be priced appropriately.

 

Agree 100%, otherwise why play a point based game at all.

 

The players will naturally gravitate towards concepts that take advantage of those more efficient builds. It is a fact of life and a basic concept behind economics in general. The only way to stop it would be to make the players play other concepts and who wants to be told, "Oh I am sorry you cannot play a fighter because we already have one. We only let one efficient concept per game. How about playing a bard?" If people wanted to be role locked then they would play D&D, if they want to play a game designed around balance they play HERO. The older editions of the system simply awarded some concept over others.

[mhd]

Heroic games still do.

[zslane]

The notion that Hero's point system is a promise of perfect point balance is a naive fiction. It is, at best, a decent attempt to provide a consistent cost-for-power metric upon which to build roughly equal characters. But there has never been an edition of the game in which the GM was relieved of the obligation and duty to police character builds and concepts.

 

I believe somewhat axiomatically that no system can be so perfect that intervention on the part of the GM is unnecessary. Consequently, it is up to the GM to recognize when a player is building purely for efficiency, not for concept, and to not indulge him in such. Shrugging and saying, "it's just human nature," is a cop-out. You're not being asked to regulate the stock market, just a handful of gamers.

 

A character concept that is just inherently more point-efficient is a slightly different matter: the GM has to decide if that concept is acceptible in the campaign, and if so, accept it. Its slightly improved efficiency over other characters isn't really a problem unless you are dealing with immature children. In which case you have a much bigger problem on your hands; one that no game system I know of can help with.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah there's no way you're going to create a mechanical and mathematical system that gives perfect balance, at least not one with any remotest degree of complexity.  The best you can do is get it close enough that the GM can make up the difference in game play.

[Ndreare]

While it is true that no game will be perfectly balanced. Using that as an excuse or statement to keep a blatantly unbalanced feature in a system built around the core concept of pay for what you get is foolish in my opinion.

 

I have seen that as the argument against change to many times and see it as ridiculous. If the system advertises that you pay for the mechanic not the special effect and you can make the character you want then it is and was right to eliminate situations were one concept (only another word for fx) is being rewarded or penalized.

I love the Hero System because it was the first system to let me play my favorite concept without people feeling it is too powerful. Suddenly my Dimension manipulating mage is okay, because while his concept was awesome, there was clear mechanical definitions and the other players could accept that.

The player who loved the magic using fighter could suddenly fit in as well without people wondering if the class combination was op.

 

That is the primary thing that brings in and keeps new players to HERO. They can build any concept they want with their points and those points combined with the suggested range tables envisage the characters to balance together. Yes there is GM oversight especially for stop powers and caution powers. But strength, dexterity and Con are neither.