What is HERO combat like?

[Altair]

Oh, for sure. And also, to be fair, V:tM is not exactly a bastion of well-balanced mechanics. Kind of the other thing

 

The thing that I really, really like about Hero System, is its ability to express wildly different characters in a way that feels distinct and satisfying. I hope that people will continue putting up with my various bits of newbie poking, trying to see what everything is. I'm a pretty firm believer in house rules, but I definitely agree that they can introduce more problems than they solve; hence my desire to understand the RAW. But regardless of how tactical, wargamey, or whatever this group winds up being, I've never seen anything run without house rules. And heck, the Champions MUSH has a really, really extensive house rule list, so there's certainly precedent.

 

And I really appreciate all the input. I'm a tinkerer, I can't get my hands on something and not start wondering what would happen if I changed X. Guitars, survey instruments, game systems, it's just a thing I do. Sometimes the answer to "what happens" is "things are much worse!" Which is extremely useful, because then I've learned something. 

 

Like, if I take out characters getting stunned, will I miss it? Will it make the game unenjoyable in other ways? Is it just an assumption that people will get crazy high CON scores, and not doing so is like selling it back? Things to learn. 

 

Anyway, thanks again.

[mhd]

Vampire: the Masquerade was probably the first really successful RPG to evangelize storytelling over simulation (i.e., wargaming) as the primary playing idiom.

I know that was how it was sold, but I never really got that, neither from reading the books nor from my own personal playing experience. The rule system was pretty crunchy and exploitable, a lot of it was geared towards combat, as with most RPGs around (even more back then). I encountered lots of combat monsters and lots of purely mechanical social stuff (overuse of Dominate/Presence). Sure, it was called "Storyteller", but I didn't see a lot of mechanical difference to its contemporary Shadowrun (another combat monster dice pool game of the early 90s). Sure, there were more politics, but Rein<pffrth>Hagen did that better in Ars Magica a few years earlier.

 

And IIRC both Torg and Amber came out before V:tM, both games that tried to get away from wargaming, IMHO with better approaches. Or, heck, Prince Valiant "the Story-Telling" game. (To be fair, neither Amber nor Prince Valiant woudl cound as "really successful")

 

 

To stay more in the topic, at times I'd actually like a bit more nitty-gritty wargaming in my HERO game, even at the cost of some of the superheroic heritage -- for example, more TFT-style maneuvering and fewer unique abilities and powers.

[bluesguy]

Something that might help with tracking that I have used for decades is to take a piece of paper and draw empty boxes (graph paper helps) with a felt tipped pen for each item you want to track - Stun, Body, End, Charges, End Reserve, etc.  Now put that paper into a plastic page protector that you can write on with an erasable marker.  We do this with Champions and it works pretty well.

 

If you are playing a Heroic level game - don't track End except for spell casters who probably have to use a bunch of end.  For all other characters, everyone should figure out 'how many turns can my character go full out - without pushing'.  For instance:  Joe's character has a 3 speed, 1/2 move is 1 END and attack is going to be 2 End. So at the end of 1 Turn the character used 9 End.  The character has a Rec of 6 and 30 End so they are going to last a while.

 

Being Stunned:  That is part of the game.  Someone's advice about being able to survive the average attack in the campaign without being stunned is a good one.  Now if you are saying Knocked Out that is also part of the game and can definitely make for a short game for someone if their character is really badly knocked out.  In all my time playing I can remember having one character knocked out into oblivion, -30 Stun or worse.  He relied on being far away from his opponents and having a high DCV and SPD to avoid being hit.  I wasn't willing to abort to a dodge during a critical moment and got hit with a way above average hit (he was already down some Stun).  I spent the rest of battle helping the GM play the bad guys :-).... It all worked out LOL

[Scott Baker]

OT:

 

 

Being Stunned:  In all my time playing I can remember having one character knocked out into oblivion, -30 Stun or worse.

 

I wish I could only remember one time.  <- Pictorial representation of my character and multiple agents with autofire weapons (old-school autofire). Super villains, no problem. Agents, problem.

[Altair]

 

@mhd: TFT? 
 
@Bluesguy: For sure. I moved towards that in my latest attempt at a combat sheet (down at the end of this post) which I haven't gotten a chance to use yet, but version 1.0 was useful to me. The 6e character sheet is really quite delightful, but there's a lot of stuff in very small print. So I made these for m'self; I've generally used both in play so far.

 

As regards being stunned, I agree, it's part of the game. Just one that I don't think adds anything to my group. Certainly not telling anyone else how to play, it's just a pet peeve that a lot of us have - I really, really dislike player action denial. I have neither encountered nor envisioned a scenario in which a game is improved in the short, medium or long term by players losing actions. Many will disagree, and that's absolutely cool - I'm not knocking how other people play. It just doesn't do anything good for us - hence the ideas for tweaking it. 

 

Being knocked out? Totally part of the game, any game. I rather appreciate the stun/body dynamic in Hero, where being taken out of a fight =/= having to create a new character. It's value added.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/files/file/267-hero-simplified-sheet/

[mhd]

@mhd: TFT?

"The Fantasy Trip", the grand-daddy of all hex-based role-playing games. Movement and attacks were pretty much all you had, not sure whether the original even had defense. And strangely enough, that's enough to create a deeply tactical experience (and one that runs splendidly fast).

[Altair]

Makes sense. Go & Chess are certainly tactical games, and their relative lack of options don't seem to have negatively impacted that.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think if you took stunning out of a Hero game it wouldn't have a significant impact (except for Stun Guy with his super stun ray gun that stuns.  He'd be pretty bummed).  I like it and want it in my game, but nobody likes being stunned.

[Hugh Neilson]

Nobody likes being KO'd to -15 and having to wait to the end of the turn to get a recovery either. I can see removing Stunned having limited impact, especially if the group dislikes it so they have all bought CON up to avoid it anyway. I find it happens infrequently (although it is a Mook Remover - nothing like having your 3 SPD mooks also lose their next action to make those supers feel...well...Super).

 

I don't think removing it, and addressing the impact on CON, would be a huge change to the game.

[Hyper-Man]

I think if you took stunning out of a Hero game it wouldn't have a significant impact (except for Stun Guy with his super stun ray gun that stuns.  He'd be pretty bummed).  I like it and want it in my game, but nobody likes being stunned.

 

Unless his name was Stunner with a gun that Drained SPD

[zslane]

I'm a pretty firm believer in house rules, but I definitely agree that they can introduce more problems than they solve; hence my desire to understand the RAW. But regardless of how tactical, wargamey, or whatever this group winds up being, I've never seen anything run without house rules.

Most definitely. Even with a theoretically perfect game system, house rules are often needed to set the adjustable knobs and dials to suit the campaign. This is never more true than with the Hero System which has many knobs and dials to be set.

 

However, it is important I think to distinguish between a game element meant to be dialed in to suit a campaign (point limits, skill level limits, xp spending guidelines, team point spending structure, etc.), and a game element that can be changed but might have unintended consequences because of how it interacts with other parts of the system (the damage model, use of the speed chart, resource tracking, etc.). Changing the mechanics and setting campaign guidelines are very different things, IMO. That's why I strongly recommend that players learn the system inside and out before they start mucking with it too much.

 

In my experience, most proposed rules/mechanics changes turn out to be unnecessary once the reasoning behind the written rule/mechanic is fully undersood and appreciated.

[Altair]

Word. 

 

I tend to run mooks in the grand tradition of Feng Shui - one solid hit, and they're gone. I found, much to my delight, that this naturally occurred in our Champions skirmishes - running some competent normals with uzis, 100% by the book, led to a lot of unconscious mooks, and protagonists feeling pretty bulletproof. Immensely satisfying. 

 

And as far as house rules go, I definitely ran into that "unnecessary changes" problem in the game I'm currently running. I have some very opinionated players who formed some strong negative opinions on a couple things, which we then bent, and later had to go fix. It's why I'm such a huge proponent of taking a game on its own merits to start out. And yeah, then we change up the mechanics. It's a big part of the experience of gaming for us, that creative bit. We make games, we break games, it's a big part of the experience.

 

But yeah, I can feel like an annoying kid around here, constantly asking "what does this do?" But it's worth knowing! 

[Hyper-Man]

 

 

@mhd: TFT? 

 

@Bluesguy: For sure. I moved towards that in my latest attempt at a combat sheet (down at the end of this post) which I haven't gotten a chance to use yet, but version 1.0 was useful to me. The 6e character sheet is really quite delightful, but there's a lot of stuff in very small print. So I made these for m'self; I've generally used both in play so far.

 

As regards being stunned, I agree, it's part of the game. Just one that I don't think adds anything to my group. Certainly not telling anyone else how to play, it's just a pet peeve that a lot of us have - I really, really dislike player action denial. I have neither encountered nor envisioned a scenario in which a game is improved in the short, medium or long term by players losing actions. Many will disagree, and that's absolutely cool - I'm not knocking how other people play. It just doesn't do anything good for us - hence the ideas for tweaking it. 

 

Being knocked out? Totally part of the game, any game. I rather appreciate the stun/body dynamic in Hero, where being taken out of a fight =/= having to create a new character. It's value added.

 

 

I rank being Stunned as just a little worse than being Prone.  Any decent Martial Artist character can force an opponent to become Prone using a Martial Throw or Legsweep.  Now the target has just been "denied" the use of their next 1/2 Phase action that could normally be used for something like a Half Move for just getting up from being Prone.  Being Entangled is worse than being Prone but not as bad as being Stunned.  Both can be used to increase the odds of Stunning an opponent which itself is just a means to Knocking Out an opponent faster due to their reduced DCV and possibly defenses.  It's ALL related.

 

Without the option to Stun, some adversaries can present otherwise insurmountable problems.  Example: a character with high DEFenses and a high REC.  Stunning via coordinated fire is sometimes the only way to reduce their DCV so bigger attacks can actually get effective amounts of STUN damage past their defenses & recovery in a timely manner.

 

Example analogy on a different scale:

The Ion Cannon on Hoth essentially fired STUNNING shots at the Star Destroyer above.  The Rebels weren't trying to WIN the battle, they were fighting a delaying action to support the escape of the bulk of their forces in their transport ships.

 

Nice sheet but I don't think I have ever made a character that would fit on that and I've been playing Champions since 1982.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't think removing it, and addressing the impact on CON, would be a huge change to the game. 

 

I'd never want it removed from the rules and would house rule it back in if that happened.  But if someone wants to leave it out with campaign rules, that's understandable.  The ability to stun people adds a tactical option to the game, and the more options the better.  And let's face it, that happens in real life, particularly if you're hit by surprise.

 

 

 

Unless his name was Stunner with a gun that Drained SPD 

 

That's exactly who I thought of as I started writing that post, heh

[Altair]

Nice sheet but I don't think I have ever made a character that would fit on that and I've been playing Champions since 1982.

 

Whole character doesn't, really. It's a reference sheet. Note that there's no space for complications, etc. I use it in conjunction with the full sheet, which is there if I need to look something up.

 

(Edit: I did try, initially, to fit everything vital on said sheets. There's just too much info, so I changed what I was doing.)

 

Question: is there any way to force a character to be stunned besides doing lots of stun damage? I've been seeing it less as an option, and more as a symptom of damage - there's not really a choice involved, like "should I try to stun them, or damage them a bunch?" You can't stun them unless you damage them a bunch; after defenses, if you take more STUN than your CON, you're stunned; nothing terribly tactical about it. Unless there's an option I'm missing! Like, those stunning shots on Hoth: are those just blast? Only Does Stun doesn't increase your likelihood of stunning someone, right? 

 

Again, I understand why people like it conceptually. I just find player action denial to be quite unpleasant, and the more time elapsing between turns, the more severe the experience. It's a total double-standard - denying one's opposition the ability to act is great fun, but it feels wrong to take it away for one side but not the other. 

 

Obviously, if I was playing a Hero game with someone outside my group, I'd just have to prepare accordingly:

 

Keep Playing the Game: +30 CON (30 Active Points); Unified Power (My enjoyment of the experience; -1/4)

[Hyper-Man]

Question: is there any way to force a character to be stunned besides doing lots of stun damage?

 

Yes.

 

There is a Stunning option for Change Environment introduced in one of the Advanced Players Guides.

 

See these 2 threads on the subject:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/90492-extra-damage-only-for-stunning/?hl=%2Bstunning+%2Battack&do=findComment&comment=2406596

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/90649-optical-laserepilepsy-gun/?hl=%2Bstunning+%2Battack&do=findComment&comment=2409389

[Ndreare]

You can also do an entangle built versus Con instead of strength to represent a con stun effect. We have done this for tazers

[Altair]

Nifty!

[Steve]

Regarding Stunning, there is also an ability a character can buy under the Automaton powers: Cannot Be Stunned. If you require a CON roll as a limitation on it, then it feels more like "You're a tough guy" instead of "You're a robot."

[NuSoardGraphite]

For my games, I am so fast at the to-hit calculation, that I just ask players for their final OCV or DCV. Then I do thd calculation as I roll and I usuallly have the number by the time the dice stop rolling. When you have been playing as long as some of us have, that to-hit roll becomes second nature.

[NuSoardGraphite]

For my games, I am so fast at the to-hit calculation, that I just ask players for their final OCV or DCV. Then I do thd calculation as I roll and I usuallly have the number by the time the dice stop rolling. When you have been playing as long as some of us have, that to-hit roll becomes second nature.

[Altair]

When you have been playing as long as some of us have, that to-hit roll becomes second nature.

 

Yep! Increasing degrees of system mastery come with time. Significant time will turn into significant mastery in many cases. 

 

However, we can't really beam 10+ years of experience into our brains.

[Greywind]

Well, you can, but the results tend to be explosive...

[zslane]

Question: is there any way to force a character to be stunned besides doing lots of stun damage?

Force? No, but there are ways to make Stunning easier without having to nearly knock them out in the process. A CON drain/transfer/suppress, for instance. Or an NND/AVLD attack with "Damage Only Counts for Stunning Purposes" limitation.

 

I just find player action denial to be quite unpleasant, and the more time elapsing between turns, the more severe the experience.

I find taking damage of any kind quite unpleasant. I find being Mind Controlled, or stuck in a Mental Illusion quite unpleasant. I find being Entangled quite unpleasant. I find being blinded or surprised quite unpleasant. I find being delayed by a Presence Attack quite unpleasant. I mean, really, combat is just plain unpleasant when you're on the receiving end of a righteous smackdown. There are many ways to have your actions "denied", including blowing your next Phase in order to abort to Dodge to avoid something really nasty. I'm not sure you wanna be pulling on this particular thread dangling from the fabric of the game system.

 

Ultimately, I don't think the real problem is that being Stunned denies players actions (cuz like I said, there are plenty of other ways to do that besides Stunning a character). The real problem is that many players don't know how to remain engaged in the game when they aren't taking an action. They probably lose at chess a lot too because they don't work out lines of play while it is the other player's turn.

[Altair]

Force? No, but there are ways to make Stunning easier without having to nearly knock them out in the process. A CON drain/transfer/suppress, for instance. Or an NND/AVLD attack with "Damage Only Counts for Stunning Purposes" limitation.

 

Rock, and good catch on distinctions. There are very few ways to force much of anything in Hero, which is a big plus in my book.

 

The rest of this, I'm going to break down - not to try and be hostile, but to show where the difference in experiences lie.

 

 

I find taking damage of any kind quite unpleasant.

 

I don't. In fact, I'm a tiny bit disappointed in any RPG if a fight goes by and my character's unscathed.

 

 

 I find being Mind Controlled, or stuck in a Mental Illusion quite unpleasant.

 

It can depend, but in these cases, I still have something to engage with. If the character's stuck in an illusion, that's a point of interaction - the game hasn't stopped.

 

 

I mean, really, combat is just plain unpleasant when you're on the receiving end of a righteous smackdown. 

 

Difference of experience. I know that this is the case for a lot of people, but it's not a universal experience. Context can matter - it's a lot more fun for my regenerating, self-resurrecting Champions character to get walloped than it is for my level 1 Pathfinder witch, no doubt - the consequences are different. One of the real benefits that I derive from Hero, is that it's just less lethal than many systems tend to be, and so the risk/reward for engaging in combat of any kind is altered in a way that I like.

 

 

There are many ways to have your actions "denied", including blowing your next Phase in order to abort to Dodge to avoid something really nasty. I'm not sure you wanna be pulling on this particular thread dangling from the fabric of the game system.

 

I 100% agree on the above. Abort actions were one of the first things that really jumped out at me about the combat system - I'd really dug them in SR5, and I frankly find Hero Systems' to be more consistent, well-thought out, and accessable to a wider selection of character types, rather than just High SPD (Or the Shadowrun Equivalent) characters - though obviously, they get the most use. 

 

The meaningful distinction, to me, is one of player agency. Being stunned is something that happens to you. Aborting to dodge is something that you make happen. One of my favorite combats of all time was a Feng Shui game where one character just used defense on my horrifically overpowered, superinitiative boss monster, sacrificing her actions to sacrifice the enemy's 

 

It was amazing. The player, me, and the other players had a blast, and it was very tactically satisfying. Conversely, if I'd had the boss monster just take away her actions, it would have been a very unpleasant experience for her. 

 

I have a horse in this race. It is not actions. It is player agency.

 

 

Ultimately, I don't think the real problem is that being Stunned denies players actions (cuz like I said, there are plenty of other ways to do that besides Stunning a character). The real problem is that many players don't know how to remain engaged in the game when they aren't taking an action. They probably lose at chess a lot too because they don't work out lines of play while it is the other player's turn.

 

I'm sure that you don't mean it this way, but that feels like an ad hominem attack. I can refute it - many of the players are avid Go enthusiasts, and while I haven't played Chess competitively for a while, I took 2nd place in the last tournament I was in (high school, so grains of salt abound), so I think the logical leap there is unnecessary. 

 

I rather enjoy when it's someone else's turn in Chess. But when my turn comes up, if the other player said "sorry! No turn for you, because reasons," I would not enjoy that experience. I would also wonder what the heck kind of chess match I'd gotten into, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Anyway, sorry if it seems like I'm being contentious here. I promise, my goal is not to argue, but rather to clarify the difference in experience. People interact with our hobby in different ways, and experience it in different manners, and that's awesome!  But it can be tricky, as human beings tend to assume that other human beings experience the world in the same way that they do, which just isn't the case.  My S/O is an introvert. I'm the other thing. No matter how much I might think that when she's upset, what she needs is lots of cheerful people, that's not going to make it any more true. 

 

Voice of experience, yo. 

 

Anyway, sorry if I'm rambling. I just wanted to make it clear where differences exist, without accidentally starting an Internet Fight. This thread has been super useful to me, and I want to see it continue.

 

Rock.