7th Edition thoughts

[IndianaJoe3]

HERO is basically stuck at layer 6 of the OSI model.  What folks want is a program running at layer 7.

 

So, Hero is like UNIX™ - very powerful and customizable, but with a steep learning curve. Hero needs the equivalent of OS X - a simple, easy to use front end, but launch Terminal and you're in bash with a full set of tools at your disposal.

[Old Man]

That's what CC is and (hopefully) FHC will become.  Or at least they're a step in the right direction.

 

To me I think one big change that needs to be made is in presentation.  IMO much of the perceived complexity of Hero is a result of character creation, which is where all the "hard math" occurs.  To play devil's advocate, admit it--if you ever thought about using a spreadsheet to handle character creation, then character creation is probably going to be not fun for a significant percentage of potential gamers.  For many, character creation is a necessary chore that delays getting to the fun, and as such a long creation process can be a real turnoff.

 

Once characters are made, though, the complexity goes away, to be replaced with a virtually table-free combat/action system that scales incredibly well, requires very little math, is mechanically consistent, and captures the feel of cinematic action.  Without restricting plausible character actions, or encouraging ridiculous character actions.

 

For this reason I've often thought that Hero books are laid out backwards.  They should start with the combat and power rules, with sample characters for immediate use, and character creation should be in the back.  If you want to take this to an extreme, you could actually use Hero to build a (gag) class-based PC framework, with (choke) predefined powers/spells, and it would be perfectly playable.  These would serve as training wheels until the players were ready to take them off and play a grown-up game. 

[mhd]

So, Hero is like UNIX™ - very powerful and customizable, but with a steep learning curve. Hero needs the equivalent of OS X - a simple, easy to use front end, but launch Terminal and you're in bash with a full set of tools at your disposal.

If we'll have to talk computing metaphors, I'd much rather see a dividing line like between shell utilities vis-a-vis low-level system code. A OS X like graphical interface is a completely orthogonal system in addition to smaller utilities, not actually on top of it.

 

Don't hide access to the basics, don't add things that "roughly" amount to the same. I see that already in some magic systems mentioned in FH... So if there's a "beginner's HERO" with prepackaged "feats" and spells, don't just build them with Powers, then round up/down arbitrarily and hide the construction process. Yes, for clarity and ease of use you might not display the inner workings when it's introduced, but then provide an appendix where it's shown how they're derived (like 6E does with talents).

 

I'm actually a bit wary about parts that already feel like they're a bit too orthogonal. Looking at you, martial arts.

[Tasha]

I'm actually a bit wary about parts that already feel like they're a bit too orthogonal. Looking at you, martial arts.

 

Martial Arts are based on a system developed by Aaron Allston. That system doesn't really have any mechanics in common with the rest of the toolbox. It would be nice to see a system that would build martial maneuvers based on the costs of Blast (aka hand to hand attack) and Combat Skill levels. The maneuvers would all end up costing more, but that might not be a bad thing. Martial arts are a bit cheap for what they give a character.

[tikiman]

Seems as though that trend is softening, because quite a few RPGs now come with Action Points as standard, or as a suggested optional rule.

That actually means the opposite: it is mainstream and an indicator of cultural shift away from traditional RPGs and toward "storytelling games."

[Tasha]

That actually means the opposite: it is mainstream and an indicator of cultural shift away from traditional RPGs and toward "storytelling games."

 

What do YOU mean by "Traditional RPG" and "Storytelling Game"

[mhd]

Star Wars came out out in '87 and had force points. I wouldn't call D20 or CORPS "storytelling", either.

 

(Heck, I wouldn't call the Storytelling System)

[redner]

What do YOU mean by "Traditional RPG" and "Storytelling Game"

Let me interject here if I may. IMO, "Storytelling" is more meta-gaming than roleplaying. Players spend points to change dice rolls, situations, and/or any aspects of the game. Doing so feels like like an MMO game. Instead of reacting to a situation as a character, players react as gods with a personal investment to their avatars. So, they spend points to change the outcome. As the system suggest, storytelling is just that. Players tell stories.

 

"Traditional RPG" is when players and avatar is one in the same. Dice are thrown and players don't get the chance to change their fate(pun). Pass or fail, the player react to it in character ("character" as in their avatar, and "character" as in a person's moral integrity. Pun was intended here, too).

[Nolgroth]

Be aware that I WAS there for the Fuzion release. I have been playing Hero as long or longer as pretty much anyone here. (2nd Boxed set for me)

 

Yeah, I remember the revulsion for the "Image like" CNM.

 

FUZION isn't the perfect system. It DID have some good ideas. Unfortunatly because people have an unreasonable hatred of the system, we can't even discuss the parts of the system that WERE good. or even the parts that were flawed but perhaps were on the right track. Because the moment some of those ideas start to be discussed all of the fuzion haters come out screeming "Nooooooooo that's FUZION you can't do ANYTHING that's like Fuzion" Shutting down ANY productive discussion one could have about any new concepts. This has really kept any real innovation with the system from happening IMHO.

 

I agree completely. I was there as well. I had played Hero 4th a lot and had no problems with Fuzion. As a matter of fact, I rather liked it. I was put off that I had to refer to Hero 4 to build some powers and there was not a linear conversion between "damage stats" but it was pretty easy to convert. In fact, I converted all of the lethal damage from Hits to Body as it would be in Hero. Worked out easier in the long run when I built powers. Fuzion was the only system I ran a Champions game in. It would be the only one I might run a future Champions game in. I liked the New Millennium setting. I liked the Iron Age and I liked the concepts behind the Image line. Some of the writing sucked, but that is a digression that may or may not deserve its own thread.

 

All that said, there was a communal hatred that ran deep because of the perception that Fuzion was going to replace Hero. Bruce Harlick weakly tried to defend what was going on, but the community truly felt that a shell game had been played. As both Nu Soard and Tasha have stated, those scars run deep. I think there was an intent by Bruce and company to publish Hero 5th. I think money got it the way. Perhaps they gambled too much on Fuzion and Champions the New Millennium's success. Water under the bridge in any case.

 

I would be more than willing to jump into a Fuzion discussion if one should pop up. Even if the idea of Fuzion was relegated to a fan-based project, I think it would be a fun addition. I would not consider swapping it out for Hero. As I stated previously, I think Hero has to revitalize how it markets and presents its products far more than changing the rules. I also think that it would take a substantial shift in the gaming market for Hero to ever rise to the level of Pathfinder or D&D in terms of popularity.

[Tasha]

Let me interject here if I may. IMO, "Storytelling" is more meta-gaming than roleplaying. Players spend points to change dice rolls, situations, and/or any aspects of the game. Doing so feels like like an MMO game. Instead of reacting to a situation as a character, players react as gods with a personal investment to their avatars. So, they spend points to change the outcome. As the system suggest, storytelling is just that. Players tell stories.

 

"Traditional RPG" is when players and avatar is one in the same. Dice are thrown and players don't get the chance to change their fate(pun). Pass or fail, the player react to it in character ("character" as in their avatar, and "character" as in a person's moral integrity. Pun was intended here, too).

 

My view is the opposite of yours. My experience with "Traditional RPG's" is that the Character is more playing piece than character with Personality, background, motivations etc. Many People are moving away from such games as they tend to be smash and grab (or Murderhobo). For many people, murderhobo is easier to get while playing computer games whether they are  CRPG's or MMORPG's. Truly Old School games even have multiple characters available for when the inevitable PC dies during the adventure. That's very computer gameish to my experience

 

Storytelling games are those who push the idea that the Characters and the story they are telling are the important part of play. So anything that gets in the way of experiencing that story tends to be removed. Ars Magica was the first game that pushed the idea of Story over smash and grab of the previous original generation of games. Vampire the Masquerade pushed it further. Both were still very crunchy games, because most players still expected lots of crunch with their Storytelling RP. Champions was one of the first of the Old School games that removed the Smash and Grab kind of adventures. They also included Disadvantages that made Players have to think about giving their characters some weaknesses (whether it was a DNPC, a Psych Limit, or even real weaknesses like Vulnerabilities and Succeptabilities). Adventure points were added because some groups thought that it sucked when a PC was making that one roll that would decide the adventure or was during the crowing moment of potential triumph and the Player rolled an 18. Adventure points give the PC's the ability to sometimes mitigate such bad rolls. Since you don't have many points to use the Players must decide when the best time to use the roll comes up. The GM should be constantly challenging the PC's so using the Action points should be tempting during play. Also, it's up to the GM to keep the Action points trickling in to get the PC's used to spending them regularly. Sometimes someone saves up their points and use them in a way that turns an routine fight vs an opponent into something very epic.

[bigbywolfe]

Let me interject here if I may. IMO, "Storytelling" is more meta-gaming than roleplaying. Players spend points to change dice rolls, situations, and/or any aspects of the game. Doing so feels like like an MMO game. Instead of reacting to a situation as a character, players react as gods with a personal investment to their avatars. So, they spend points to change the outcome. As the system suggest, storytelling is just that. Players tell stories.

 

"Traditional RPG" is when players and avatar is one in the same. Dice are thrown and players don't get the chance to change their fate(pun). Pass or fail, the player react to it in character ("character" as in their avatar, and "character" as in a person's moral integrity. Pun was intended here, too).

"Player and avatar is one in the same"?  Seriously?  That's getting into weird "Dark Dungeons" territory if you ask me.

 

Story games, role playing games, and to some extent war games are all related.  There are differences, but there is a spectrum, not a definitive line in the sand.  No one I've ever talked to would call Savage Worlds a "story game".  Hell, it's mechanics were based on a miniatures war game, yet it has Bennies.   

[IndianaJoe3]

Don't hide access to the basics, don't add things that "roughly" amount to the same. I see that already in some magic systems mentioned in FH... So if there's a "beginner's HERO" with prepackaged "feats" and spells, don't just build them with Powers, then round up/down arbitrarily and hide the construction process. Yes, for clarity and ease of use you might not display the inner workings when it's introduced, but then provide an appendix where it's shown how they're derived (like 6E does with talents).

 

I was thinking more along the lines of the archetypes from the superhero gallery in Champions. Nothing is hidden, but it's presented as a list of options instead of a pile of parts.

[shuddemell]

I am not certain I have ever played a "Storytelling" game per se, at least not the rulesets mentioned, but to us the story always was important. I think the trend these days is to give players a little more license on the direction the narrative takes. I see this with positives and negatives. One the biggest I have run into is some people heavily invested in the story idea believe that they should control the story entirely at the expense of other players and gamemaster. This is of course, an extreme. I like the idea of Hero Points in that you can use them to compensate for really bad dumb luck and maybe to give a subtle nudge to the narrative. That being said, I am very stingy in handing them out. I start everyone with a 1/2d6 of points, but they only get replacements when they do something that really pushes the narrative in an enjoyable direction, as determined by the table as a whole, or their in character play is stellar for some particular reason. They are useful, but in my opinion, must be used very sparingly.

[shuddemell]

Martial Arts are based on a system developed by Aaron Allston. That system doesn't really have any mechanics in common with the rest of the toolbox. It would be nice to see a system that would build martial maneuvers based on the costs of Blast (aka hand to hand attack) and Combat Skill levels. The maneuvers would all end up costing more, but that might not be a bad thing. Martial arts are a bit cheap for what they give a character.

Yeah, there are some problems with system continuity with regards Martial Arts for sure. Overall, I like the feel of the system though, and they work pretty well for us. The real problem with them is at low point totals they can be particularly cost effective, but the higher you go in character points, the less useful they become. Maybe this is right, but sometimes it doesn't seem so.

[Ragitsu]

Thing of it is, most modern RPGs can handle meatgrinder type sessions/lengthy tales of character development at the same time. Older games (at least regarding their mechanics), basically throw the characters towards probability/fate and that's it.

[Stacie.Winters]

What could be done to help with Hero System becoming more 'story' friendly/focused and less a system of appearing to be like doing accounting?

 

One thing I think that could be done is to revamp the Complications system completely, entirely taking away the focus on gaining character points during character creation and instead making them completely character/story focused elements of the character that the GM can use to complicate the character's lives and when he does the character gains bonus XP. The Complications can still keep everything more or less the same... making them have die rolls that the GM can roll to see how often they can come up in a adventure and things like that. Another thing this can lead to is reinforcing the Action Points economy where if a Complication comes up and has a negative effect on the situation/scene than that character gains a Action Point.

 

This will lower a lot of front loaded complexity of character design while also hopefully inspiring players to be more open to the idea of seeing their character's in Complicated situations that make the story better.

[Stacie.Winters]

What makes a storytelling game a 'storytelling' game? I think all rpgs are story creation games at heart, even if the game mechanisms might all be about combat. I also think it's always up to the players to create that story. Sure some games do have game mechanisms that can inspire that and I wouldn't say that the World of Darkness Storytelling games has all that many game mechanisms that drive that.

 

Fate Core and all Fate derived games have Aspects that cause both a lot of headaches and are truly amazing all at the same time but they do help with getting into the character... as does all Cortex Plus games, especially Smallville which, in my not so humble opinion, is one of the most amazing games of all time and there is no game with actual game mechanisms that do what Smallville does and the character generation process is... there is no other game really like it. When you make a character in this game, you Are invested.

 

I think if Hero System could be set up in a way where players have the option to make characters in broad strokes instead of needing to know every minor detail up front then that would help a lot of people get into the game better I think. But... I am sort of at a loss as to how to go about doing this atm.

[Old Man]

Hero  is actually positioned pretty well to capitalize on the non-grinding space.  In CRPGs, PC actions are really limited by the constraints of the software and the input devices.  One of the best things about Hero is that the system can support all kinds of weird actions the players might come up with.  Smash my opponent with a car I picked up?  Frighten him with an impressive display of destruction?  Grab him, trip him, poke him in the eye?  Hit two or more bad guys with one stroke?  Use my superior agility to slip past him?  Render him unconscious without killing him?  Kick through a door?  Handle range penalties at literally cosmic distances?  Arm wrestle?  Swing from a rope?  Jump out of the way?  Fight in a dark room? 

 

All of these eventualities are clearly, consistently, and reasonably realistically handled by Hero.  I have yet to see any other game system that even approaches this level of versatility.

[tikiman]

I sometimes like to stir the pot; I'm not advocating for one over the other.

[Greywind]

What could be done to help with Hero System becoming more 'story' friendly/focused and less a system of appearing to be like doing accounting?

 

One thing I think that could be done is to revamp the Complications system completely, entirely taking away the focus on gaining character points during character creation and instead making them completely character/story focused elements of the character that the GM can use to complicate the character's lives and when he does the character gains bonus XP. The Complications can still keep everything more or less the same... making them have die rolls that the GM can roll to see how often they can come up in a adventure and things like that. Another thing this can lead to is reinforcing the Action Points economy where if a Complication comes up and has a negative effect on the situation/scene than that character gains a Action Point.

 

This will lower a lot of front loaded complexity of character design while also hopefully inspiring players to be more open to the idea of seeing their character's in Complicated situations that make the story better.

 

Disads/Complications help during character creation to flesh out the back story of the character. Why is X after our hero? Why does our hero a hang-up about such-and-such behavior? This helps the player and the GM figure out where the character fits in the world.

 

Why give one character bonus XP because something that he created comes up when it affects the entire group?

 

What makes a storytelling game a 'storytelling' game? I think all rpgs are story creation games at heart, even if the game mechanisms might all be about combat. I also think it's always up to the players to create that story. Sure some games do have game mechanisms that can inspire that and I wouldn't say that the World of Darkness Storytelling games has all that many game mechanisms that drive that.

 

Fate Core and all Fate derived games have Aspects that cause both a lot of headaches and are truly amazing all at the same time but they do help with getting into the character... as does all Cortex Plus games, especially Smallville which, in my not so humble opinion, is one of the most amazing games of all time and there is no game with actual game mechanisms that do what Smallville does and the character generation process is... there is no other game really like it. When you make a character in this game, you Are invested.

 

I think if Hero System could be set up in a way where players have the option to make characters in broad strokes instead of needing to know every minor detail up front then that would help a lot of people get into the game better I think. But... I am sort of at a loss as to how to go about doing this atm.

 

One of the things that drew me in to the Hero System was that everything was defined for the character. There was no playing fast and loose with the character's abilities or powers. Like I said earlier, if I wanted simple in builds I'd be still playing V&V or looking at M&M.

[Hyper-Man]

Something I haven't seen brought up yet that may be worth discussing is the ratio fans who are GM's vs. Players.  The GM's (new & experienced) are what HERO needs to attract to grow the fanbase.  It doesn't matter how many potential HERO players are out there if there are no GM's willing to use the system to run a game.  It's not just the complexity of making characters, it's the complexity of balancing everything to the scale of the PC's.  All the features that make it easier to create the characters the players want are also potential loopholes that the GM has to consider closing (that's the perception of many at least).  The prep work that a potential NEW HERO GM has to put into running a Champions or Fantasy Hero game just seems staggering when compared to other systems. 

 

For any folks here who didn't already know, I am NOT a GM.  I tried it a few times years ago and I just didn't have the right temperament or skill set for it and the players at the time were spoiled by a great GM so I didn't really get a chance to adjust.  Now I'm just too CDO make it work.  I would love to be that 'guy' who knows the system and helps everyone learn it but folks don't seem to have the patience for that these days.

[Tasha]

What could be done to help with Hero System becoming more 'story' friendly/focused and less a system of appearing to be like doing accounting?

 

One thing I think that could be done is to revamp the Complications system completely, entirely taking away the focus on gaining character points during character creation and instead making them completely character/story focused elements of the character that the GM can use to complicate the character's lives and when he does the character gains bonus XP. The Complications can still keep everything more or less the same... making them have die rolls that the GM can roll to see how often they can come up in a adventure and things like that. Another thing this can lead to is reinforcing the Action Points economy where if a Complication comes up and has a negative effect on the situation/scene than that character gains a Action Point.

 

This will lower a lot of front loaded complexity of character design while also hopefully inspiring players to be more open to the idea of seeing their character's in Complicated situations that make the story better.

 

The problem with that is two fold. One you really give the PC's no incentive to take any complications. Also you take away the ability to "buy off" complications with XP. I think that the Complication/Disadvantage system works well, is pretty darned internally consistant. I have some minor quibbles with it (I think that dependance is set to be too quick to start damaging the PC)

[Tasha]

Something I haven't seen brought up yet that may be worth discussing is the ratio fans who are GM's vs. Players.  The GM's (new & experienced) are what HERO needs to attract to grow the fanbase.  It doesn't matter how many potential HERO players are out there if there are no GM's willing to use the system to run a game.  It's not just the complexity of making characters, it's the complexity of balancing everything to the scale of the PC's.  All the features that make it easier to create the characters the players want are also potential loopholes that the GM has to consider closing (that's the perception of many at least).  The prep work that a potential NEW HERO GM has to put into running a Champions or Fantasy Hero game just seems staggering when compared to other systems. 

 

For any folks here who didn't already know, I am NOT a GM.  I tried it a few times years ago and I just didn't have the right temperament or skill set for it and the players at the time were spoiled by a great GM so I didn't really get a chance to adjust.  Now I'm just too CDO make it work.  I would love to be that 'guy' who knows the system and helps everyone learn it but folks don't seem to have the patience for that these days.

 

You don't have to be a good GM to teach people how to play. In fact being a mediocre GM might be better than being super GM with all of the interlocking plots etc. Start at the FLGS with a Set of PreGen characters. Brick, Martial Artist, Energy Projector etc. Keep the writeups simple. Run simple and short scenarios (thinking Champions here). Do the Bank Robbery. There should be maps for that in Champions Battlegrounds, and if not there I KNOW that DrivethruRPG has nice printable full sized maps for such scenarios. Keep the game moving and again simple. Don't include Point Values on the CS (I have a 6e HD Export Template that does this). Just keep running simple combat heavy adventures. Slowly add in the Roleplay. Remember this is to entice D&D and Pathfinder players who are used to Murderhobo Dungeons.

[Lucius]

I should probably get that export template

 

Lucius Alexander

 

the palindromedary wants to import template

[NuSoardGraphite]

I think its absolutely ridiculous that people think that games have to be specifically built around the concept of storytelling. isnt that the entire impetus behind roleplaying in general?

 

I am a storytelling GM, always have been from the moment i first picked up that red boxed set and decided to try and run a game. i always felt that each gaming session should be like the adventure fiction that i constantly read as a teenager. that the players were the heroes in a tale that the gm would weave to entertain everyone involved. why then would a game need to be structured to encourage something that should be the entire point of playing it in the first place?

 

I understand why players want a little more control over what happens to their characters in the course of the story. i do however believe that desire comes from experience playing under adversarial gms who dont fully understand the gm-player relationship (perhaps they believe its an us vs them situation which couldnt be further from the truth) but the perception that one particular rpg is "better" for storytelling than another rpg simply because of the structure of its ruleset tells me that people dont understand roleplaying in general. or perhaps their understanding of it was informed by playing under different circumstances than those i myself experienced growing up, because to me the rules are simply there to help determine who succeeds or fails in their actions during the game and the roleplaying aspect comes from playing out the results of that success or failure. how much or how little story is involved in the game is never the purview of the game itself, but always that of the group playing it. all the game designers can do is provide seeds for potential story and adventure, nothing more. its up to each individual gm to cultivate those seeds and to the players to harvest the yeild that gros from them.