A Look At The Evolution of Champions/Hero

[Chris Goodwin]

I much prefer the Universal system, because I tend to play a lot of different games and genres and I reeally dont want the mechanics to change much at all when playing something different.

 

I just want a game system which can act as the "laws of physics" for the games I run, which does things in the way I want them done, without having to learn new game mechanics each and every time we switch genres.

 

What about the optional combat rules?  Knockback, Knockdown, Bleeding, Impairing, Disabling, Hit Locations.  Do you use some of those in some campaigns and not others?  I'm genuinely curious.

[Steve Long]

@ zslane: that's fascinating regarding the different point costs. I never knew that was a thing, wide-eyed youngster and all.

 

I wonder, has there ever been a "cost-by-genre" supplement, or anything of the like? It's one of the things that I really liked about BESM - basically different skills had different costs, based on the genre of the game being played. Everyman Skills are the closest I've seen in CC/6e, and I'm not sure that I'd want anything more than that. Mostly just curious.

 

Not specifically, but there are suggestions in the various genre books that such-and-such a game element might need to have a different cost in that particular genre (or at least some campaigns in that genre). That tends to be very much a GM's judgment thing, though, methinks.

[Steve Long]

 

I think that turning Hero into a universal system was bad for the games.  Nothing wrong with making it a unified system, but universal -- taking one set of rules and assumptions and using it for everything -- can give you some strange results.  Like, different people coming into a genre with different assumptions.  

 

That's certainly a potential point of complaint. But I think in 2015 it's easy to forget what a hassle it was back when each game had its own slightly tweaked version of the rules (assuming one was even playing HERO System back then). I remember the damn nuisance of the situation well, and it makes me twitch. As evils go, I find the evil you're describing, Chris, as very much the lesser.

 

But reasonable minds may vary an' alla that.

[Steve Long]

I never felt that it was better for supers than for any other genre, or worse.  My group rocked it hard for everything we played, pretty much.

 

That's been my experience as well. In fact I think HERO's particularly well suited for many Fantasy games due to the tools it gives you for creating and customizing spells/magic systems, and to a lesser extent monsters. I also find its basis in "cinematic realism" great for genres like Pulp.

 

But again, reasonable minds may differ. As long as we're all having fun, that's really all that matters.

[Steve Long]

I much prefer the Universal system, because I tend to play a lot of different games and genres and I reeally dont want the mechanics to change much at all when playing something different.

 

I just want a game system which can act as the "laws of physics" for the games I run, which does things in the way I want them done, without having to learn new game mechanics each and every time we switch genres.

 

That's a significant value for me as well.

 

Again, it all gets back to "how do you have fun?" Some groups love learning new rules systems and tinkering around with them. And that's cool. But other groups don't like that, and therefore having one set of rules that easily does many things increases their fun. Also cool.

[NuSoardGraphite]

What about the optional combat rules? Knockback, Knockdown, Bleeding, Impairing, Disabling, Hit Locations. Do you use some of those in some campaigns and not others? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Those are fine. They're optional. The core mechanics are the important oones. In any case, I always use Hit Locations, no matter the genre. That is a pet peeve of mine from way back in the D&D days and I wrote my own location charts.

 

I almost always use Impairing and Disabling rules and Critical Hit rules. Makes for gritty combats. Knockback or knockdown depends on genre and the feel I want for the game.

[Chris Goodwin]

That's certainly a potential point of complaint. But I think in 2015 it's easy to forget what a hassle it was back when each game had its own slightly tweaked version of the rules (assuming one was even playing HERO System back then). I remember the damn nuisance of the situation well, and it makes me twitch. As evils go, I find the evil you're describing, Chris, as very much the lesser.

 

But reasonable minds may vary an' alla that.

 

I don't remember it being any particular nuisance, but that was partly due to me (and possibly others in my group) having a knack for remembering the differences, and my group being willing to allow use of rules from other games when it was reasonable.  (They were compatible; after all, this was still the HERO System!)  

[Chris Goodwin]

Fifth edition went more in the direction of fourth, and I usually consider 4e and 5e to be a second generation; 5e is probably more of a "4.5 edition" as far as overall edition differences are concerned. 6e is either a third gen or a 2.5 gen, depending on how you consider the changes.

 

I've got an addendum to the above post:

 

I now think caps for both Active Points and Disadvantages were the worst thing to happen to the game. Both of these came about in the 3rd-4th edition changeover.  Active Points weren't a problem because the Endurance rules were harsher. Also, Disadvantage caps weren't needed because the Disadvantage rules were harsher. In both cases, diminishing returns meant these were self-limiting.

 

Active Point caps came about as a direct result of the loosening of the Endurance rules; the lower END cost for Powers, and the lower cost to remove it, made END easier and less expensive to ignore. The problem was that END cost was the major limiter of Active Points in Champions and Fantasy Hero; your 10-12 DC attacks would cost that much in END, which was even worse for heroic characters, who tended to have lower END and REC scores, than for superheroes.

 

A similar thing happened with Disadvantages. In first gen, total point limits were vague; the real limiter was this: how much further are you willing to go, Disadvantage-wise, to make your character more powerful? The diminishing returns rules made for more varied characters.  

 

Per-category and total point caps meant that characters started to look the same. With 12 DC, 60 Active Points, and 150 max Disadvantages with 50 per category, meant that all of the characters would have 12 DC attacks, 60 Active Point Powers, and 150 in Disadvantages with no more than 50 per category; every character would have two Hunteds, two Psych Limits, one or two Reputations, one or two Distinctive Features -- and that would usually get us close to the 150 point mark if not hit it. Over the years there've been many attempts to increase character diversity through increasingly complex rules constructions -- I'm specifically looking at various Rule Of X constructions, different "soft caps" on attacks and defenses, and the like, but I've also been in games that had some differing Disadvantage rules. (The most common one I've seen was no category limits on Psychological Limitations, because those are the most personal to the character and the easiest for a GM to play with.)

[Chris Goodwin]

Lest I be seen as pointing out problems without offering solutions, I am working on solutions. These should be considered works in progress. They should all, with one obvious exception, be usable in games from 4e through 6e.  These are primarily for Champions games, though with some tweaking they should be usable with heroic games.

For starters: for 6e games, go back to the old style notation of Base + Complications, rather than Total with Matching.  

Problem: 1-5e characters get Figured Characteristics, while 6e characters don't.

Solution: 6e characters get Free Stuff! Potential solutions:

1. All characters get 50 free points to spend between OCV, DCV, OMCV, DMCV, SPD, PD, ED, REC, END, STUN.
2. Alternately: characters can, based on their conception, take a free 60 point Characteristics package, which includes formerly Figured for free.
   1. If you're playing a brick: you get, for free, +20 STR, +10 PD, +10 ED, +10 REC, +10 STUN, +25 END.
   2. If you're playing a martial artist, you get, for free, +10 DEX, +2 OCV, +2 DCV, +1 SPD, and 10 points of Martial Arts.
   3. If you're playing an energy projector, you get 60 points worth of free Multipower.  (Or maybe 30 points worth of free EC, even in 6e!)
   4. If you're playing a mentalist, you get, for free, +15 EGO, +5 OMCV, +5 DMCV, 15 Mental Defense.
   5. If you're playing a speedster, you get, for free, +10 DEX, +3 SPD, and 10 points worth of free noncombat multiples on your movement.
   6. If you're playing something else, you get an additional 50 points. You take a 10 point hit over everyone else, but you're not limited on what you can do with those points.

Problem: 4e added a bunch of Skills that 1-3e characters didn't have access to and couldn't afford.

Solution: All characters get 50 points worth of free noncombat Skills.

Problem: Cookie cutter characters Disadvantage-wise.

Solution: Change up the Disadvantage/Complication rules. Possibilities:

1. No category caps and no max.
2. Solution 1, plus diminishing returns from 1-3e.

Problem: Beyond a certain point, Disadvantages/Complications get ignored because GMs and players forget about them.

Solution: GMs, don't do this! Possibilities:

1. Give players a bonus for bringing them in themselves. (+1 XP or +1 HAP, or whatever works.)
2. Build adventures around them. (Seriously, Mr. or Ms. GM, the player is giving you plot hooks on a silver platter and you're not running with them? That's on you.)
3. Withhold experience points, and put them into buying off Disads/Comps that don't come up. These get tracked on the character sheet; if the player brings them up, they get to scoop up some of those precious, precious XP.

Problem: Cookie cutter characters via Active Point, DC, and Defense caps.

Solution: Let END cost be the limiting factor. Return to 3rd edition END rules: Powers cost 1 END per 5 Active Points; to halve Endurance Cost is a +¼ Advantage; to get to 0 END you have to buy it to .5 END or below.

Problem: Players and GMs hate tracking END because of the bookkeeping

Solutions:

1. Figure out how much END a character spends with various combinations of Powers and activities. (Example: Full Move; Half Move and attack (separately for different movement and attack modes); Attack Without Move; Active Force Field or other END-using defenses; and so on.) Use tally marks; count them up during Post-12 recovery.
2. Similarly to 1, except rather than tallying up per use, figure out your Average END Cost (AEC) per Phase; multiply this by your SPD for Average END Cost per Turn. Average END Cost per Turn minus REC equals how much END you're down at the beginning of the next Turn. Or just count up the Phases in which you use your AEC/Phase.
3. Suck it up, Buttercup. This is a game in which we routinely multiply double digit numbers by fractions. You're complaining about tracking fuel?

[zslane]

I'd have to dig around to find it, but I'm pretty sure that our Champions groups from as far back as 1983 (2nd ed.) had campaign limits on active points in a power, among other things. Sure, there can be a degree of sameness in terms of power distribution when there are such caps, but the diversity in power combinations--to say nothing of character concepts in general--prevented noticible (or problematic) sameness. Moreover, those campaign limits felt really necessary to prevent asymmetrical "arms races" prompted by severe mismatches between attacks and defenses when players tried to put the bulk of their points in one or the other.

[Greywind]

 

I've got an addendum to the above post:

 

I now think caps for both Active Points and Disadvantages were the worst thing to happen to the game. Both of these came about in the 3rd-4th edition changeover.  Active Points weren't a problem because the Endurance rules were harsher. Also, Disadvantage caps weren't needed because the Disadvantage rules were harsher. In both cases, diminishing returns meant these were self-limiting.

 

Active Point caps came about as a direct result of the loosening of the Endurance rules; the lower END cost for Powers, and the lower cost to remove it, made END easier and less expensive to ignore. The problem was that END cost was the major limiter of Active Points in Champions and Fantasy Hero; your 10-12 DC attacks would cost that much in END, which was even worse for heroic characters, who tended to have lower END and REC scores, than for superheroes.

 

A similar thing happened with Disadvantages. In first gen, total point limits were vague; the real limiter was this: how much further are you willing to go, Disadvantage-wise, to make your character more powerful? The diminishing returns rules made for more varied characters.  

 

Per-category and total point caps meant that characters started to look the same. With 12 DC, 60 Active Points, and 150 max Disadvantages with 50 per category, meant that all of the characters would have 12 DC attacks, 60 Active Point Powers, and 150 in Disadvantages with no more than 50 per category; every character would have two Hunteds, two Psych Limits, one or two Reputations, one or two Distinctive Features -- and that would usually get us close to the 150 point mark if not hit it. Over the years there've been many attempts to increase character diversity through increasingly complex rules constructions -- I'm specifically looking at various Rule Of X constructions, different "soft caps" on attacks and defenses, and the like, but I've also been in games that had some differing Disadvantage rules. (The most common one I've seen was no category limits on Psychological Limitations, because those are the most personal to the character and the easiest for a GM to play with.)

 

I agree with much of this. In earlier editions with the inherent END cost of powers coupled with the Increased END cost Lim it was possible to create a "once per adventure/combat" power that would take the character out on its use. Now it is more a moderate bang that won't slow the character down much at all, regardless of how high you crank the multiple on the END cost.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd have to dig around to find it, but I'm pretty sure that our Champions groups from as far back as 1983 (2nd ed.) had campaign limits on active points in a power, among other things. Sure, there can be a degree of sameness in terms of power distribution when there are such caps, but the diversity in power combinations--to say nothing of character concepts in general--prevented noticible (or problematic) sameness. Moreover, those campaign limits felt really necessary to prevent asymmetrical "arms races" prompted by severe mismatches between attacks and defenses when players tried to put the bulk of their points in one or the other.

 

Same here, but they weren't hard caps.  In second gen games, you usually have to take everything into account with DC limits; your Martial Arts maneuvers, Haymakers, even bricks picking up stuff to use as improvised weapons.  Whereas, sometimes it's nice to hit on that occasionally overlooked combo that gives you a 16d6 attack, every once in a while (at a probable cost of like 30 END!).  

 

I agree with much of this. In earlier editions with the inherent END cost of powers coupled with the Increased END cost Lim it was possible to create a "once per adventure/combat" power that would take the character out on its use. Now it is more a moderate bang that won't slow the character down much at all, regardless of how high you crank the multiple on the END cost.

 

Right.  This was pretty frequent in my groups, and there was even precedent in the comics: lots of characters had one-shot finishing moves that would practically take themselves out, but were used in desperate circumstances.  See also: Pushing, and buying Powers with "extra Push" built in.  

[zslane]

Back in 2nd. edition you didn't have Triggered or Linked powers. If you wanted multiple powers to fire off with one attack roll, you simply bought them as one combined power. This led to powers with very large active point totals even when the DC of the component powers were relatively low.

 

One martial artist I knew of had a Mystical Nerve Strike defined as a 3D6 NND + 3DEF/3D6 NND Ego Entangle (paralysis). Three dice wasn't much damage on the face of it, even NND, but the Ego Entangle had a nasty way of taking nearly anyone he tagged with it out of the fight. Villains started showing up with greatly boosted EGO stats just to cope with it (having Ego Defense didn't help, so having enough EGO to break out of the entangle was the only option). This made it impossible for the other mentalists in the campaign to have much impact. So they started boosting their attacks by adding armor piercing (to help penetrate the additional ego defense all that extra EGO gave the villains) and combined EGO Drains. The mental power arms race was on, and all because of a martial artist, of all things.

[Chris Goodwin]

Back in 2nd. edition you didn't have Triggered or Linked powers. If you wanted multiple powers to fire off with one attack roll, you simply bought them as one combined power. This led to powers with very large active point totals even when the DC of the component powers were relatively low.

 

One martial artist I knew of had a Mystical Nerve Strike defined as a 3D6 NND + 3DEF/3D6 NND Ego Entangle (paralysis). Three dice wasn't much damage on the face of it, even NND, but the Ego Entangle had a nasty way of taking nearly anyone he tagged with it out of the fight. Villains started showing up with greatly boosted EGO stats just to cope with it (having Ego Defense didn't help, so having enough EGO to break out of the entangle was the only option). This made it impossible for the other mentalists in the campaign to have much impact. So they started boosting their attacks by adding armor piercing (to help penetrate the additional ego defense all that extra EGO gave the villains) and combined EGO Drains. The mental power arms race was on, and all because of a martial artist, of all things.

 

If I remember correctly, Mental Paralysis was 20 points per 1 DEF/1d6?  That meant that that martial artist was dropping... if I'm counting everything correctly, 30 END?  The 3d6 NND would have been 6, and the NND Mental Paralysis portion would have been 120 Active (if I have the base cost correct), for 24.  That's a 150 Active Point Power total, and if he's reduced the END cost.. the NND would have come to 52 modified to get to 0, and the Mental Paralysis (assume everything else is correct) 270 modified to 0.  322 modified points for those two Powers.  I'm assuming there were quite a few Limitations on those?  (See also, in my "A Look Back At Third Edition Champions" at the discussion of 300 Active Point Powers with -10 in Limitations to get them to a buyable level... )  Edited to add:  Or, you short circuited the END problem, and brought the Power down to a less expensive level, by putting it on an "END Battery" (what it was called at the time) or Charges... probably -2 worth of Limitation on that 120 Active would have brought it down to 40 points, and made it less of a monstrosity in the bargain.  (I think that would have made it 1 Charge, based on the 1st gen values, though a couple of others could have been packed together to reduce it a bit further.)  

[assault]

I miss my copies of Champions II and III.

 

If I still had them, I would seriously consider reverting back to 2nd/3rd edition (1e was a little buggy).

 

I suppose I still could, but I'd need work arounds for a few things.

 

Hmm.... I wonder if it would be possible to reverse engineer the vehicle rules from Strike Force and other published vehicles....

[PeterLind]

I like the Dr Xaos blog post and am particularly interested in what is meant by this statement:  "You can probably see that I’m typically more interested in what I see as the “lost” Champions, not only because I encountered the game at its 3^rd edition, but because the title-specific, pre-Iron Crown design philosophy appeals to me on a practical level."

 

I am not sure, though, that GURPS had a measurable influence in the Hero System.  4th edition seems to have been a natural progression from what had gone before.  The rules for DI, JI, and Fantasy Hero were more compatible because they were for the heroic level of gaming.  Champions, however, had its differences, particularly with some of the point costs for skills.  For example, Detective Work and Stealth were 5 pts.  Martial arts, by necessity, had to be more granular for DI because it was on the heroic level, with typical strengths being 10-20.  In Robot Warriors, the comic book style of martial arts from Champions was converted to a DI-style form of martial art.  I think this might have been a precursor to what would later become the comic book form of martial arts for 4th edition.  Overall, the skills from Champions, DI, JI, Fantasy Hero, etc. into one unified table and then conformed to heroic level costs.

 

A couple of other points worth mentioning regarding the evolution of Champions in the 80s.  First, the main differences between the first, second, and third editions were that Density Increase, Growth, and Shrinking was being redesigned for each new edition.  Finally, there was a version for these powers in 4th edition that seemed to resolve the controversy.  Also, Champions 3rd edition did not explicitly stated that special powers, such as special defenses or enhanced senses, could not be placed in power frameworks.  This was dealt with in 4th edition.  Also. the target Characteristic x1, x2, x3, x4 tables for Presence Attacks and mental powers were changed to CHAR +10, +20, +30 in 4th edition.  Lastly, the Haymaker-like "Kick" maneuver, which was -2/-2 DCV was later dropped from the combat maneuvers table.  Haymaker continued to inflict x1.5 STR damage in 4th edition even though the martial arts attacks were changed to a + x dice system. 

 

Just some thoughts on changes I remember from those years.

[Chris Goodwin]

I miss my copies of Champions II and III.

 

If I still had them, I would seriously consider reverting back to 2nd/3rd edition (1e was a little buggy).

 

I suppose I still could, but I'd need work arounds for a few things.

 

About three months ago I found decent copies of both II and III at Amazon; II was in shrink wrap in fact and was a reprint published by ICE. You could probably still find copies.

[zslane]

...Charges... probably -2 worth of Limitation on that 120 Active would have brought it down to 40 points, and made it less of a monstrosity in the bargain.  (I think that would have made it 1 Charge, based on the 1st gen values, though a couple of others could have been packed together to reduce it a bit further.)

 

My memory is admittedly fuzzy, but I recall this power having 3 charges, defined as the character calling upon the spirits of three ancestors to essentially "possess" the target and brain-lock them until their Ego could shake them loose.

 

Regardless of the build specifics, the point is that we found limiting active points was every bit as important as limiting damage dice, even in editions prior to 4th. Especially since the term "Damage Class", and the way calculating it evolved over time, didn't exist back then.

[Steve Long]

 

 

I like the Dr Xaos blog post and am particularly interested in what is meant by this statement:  "You can probably see that I’m typically more interested in what I see as the “lost” Champions, not only because I encountered the game at its 3^rd edition, but because the title-specific, pre-Iron Crown design philosophy appeals to me on a practical level."

 

I certainly wouldn't presume to speak definitively for Ron, but I think all he really means is this:  as a thought experiment, he's intrigued by how Champions might have evolved if it had remained what it was -- solely a superhero game, driven (at least in his view) in part by genre considerations, and there were no 4th Edition that made the system "generic."

 

Generally speaking, I don't think this has much (if anything) to do with specific, nit-picky things like how much Game Element X cost from one edition to another, or how to calculate the Range Modifier, or other rules stuff -- except to the extent that the overall changes between editions can be read as an indication of the writer's/designer's "game design philosophy." But in terms of general history it's certainly intriguing to trace such things.

 

That's all, really. I'm not so sure I would entirely agree with him on the path the game would take, or on the extent of "genre" influences, but that's such a broad topic it's best saved for an in-person discussion.

 

In any event, the second part of the overall essay, written by me, should show up online pretty soon and I'll be sure to post a link.  Edit:  here's that link:  https://adeptpress.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/90s-hero-guest-post/#more-2470

[Ninja-Bear]

One thing that confused me about fourth edition was some of the references to third edition. Namely powers and some advantages which were stripped down such as autofire not having an inherent OCV advantage anymore.

[Tasha]

I think that 4e's design esp regarding Skills and talents make more sense if you were playing Fantasy Hero, Danger International(Espionage) and the other non Supers games. I LIKED that 4e removed the inherent OCV bonuses from Autofire and Acrobatics.

 

At the time it sure felt like GURPS influenced the move toward a "Generic" rule book approach to 4e and later editions.

It also solved a huge annoyance when playing multiple Hero System games. That being that there were small differences between the various stand alone games that would trip you up (ie in Champions there was an OCV penalty for half moving, that was absent in other genre games using Hero).

[jackalope]

That's been my experience as well. In fact I think HERO's particularly well suited for many Fantasy games due to the tools it gives you for creating and customizing spells/magic systems, and to a lesser extent monsters. I also find its basis in "cinematic realism" great for genres like Pulp.

 

I've been running a Fantasy HERO game for a group of complete n00bs for the last two months.  Their only experience is with D&D 4e and Pathfinder, and for the first few weeks they really didn't understand what I meant when I said that HERO was cinematic in a way those games couldn't hope to be.

 

Now, after several weeks of combats, they're starting to understand what "cinematic" means.  They're understanding that combat that goes badly for them tends to end with most of the party knocked-out, not dead.  They're coming to understand that varying your attacks gives you huge advantages unlike most system, where it tends to be "This round I use my best attack. Repeat forever," and that incidental effects like Knockback can be powerful multipliers.  Like my players are all slowly cluing in on the idea that if they outspeed an opponent, they can get in Haymakers and recover their DCVs, and that Normal damage boosts Knockback over their regular Killing attacks, so I've started seeing the swordmaster do the classic "Sword Block, Sword Block, Spinning Heel Kick!" combo that every cinematic fantasy hero uses.  They're also in love with the whole PRE Attack mechanic and how it allows role-playing to actually influence the battlefield -- all of the low DEX characters are becoming battlecry experts!

 

In our last session, the epilogue to the first adventure arc, I attacked all of my players with hired thugs and assassins.  They had revealed damaging secrets of powerful aristocrats, and provoked a nasty response.  Here's the thing though:  I attacked them all in their own homes, after having spent the last few weeks making sure they all had their own digs.    I ran it as one huge combat with each of four PCs in a separate location, unable to rely on each other at all.  And because the HERO System produces heroes and not 1/4th of the requisite power needed to fight effectively, each of them survived.  At the same time as I was running the combat, I wove in descriptions of things happening in other areas -- NPCs who had helped the party and knew bits and pieces of the whole conspiracy being killed by assassins.  After the session, all of the players were talking about how the whole session had felt like a "montage" and using other cinematic terms to describe what had just happened.

 

It was the kind of thing I'd never try in a D&D clone.  It would have wiped out the party.  But its exactly the sort of play that HERO empowers, which is precisely why I use HERO.

[Steve Long]

Jackalope, that sounds very much like my own group's experiences. It's great to see the newcomers' eyes open and attitudes adjust.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I've been running a Fantasy HERO game for a group of complete n00bs for the last two months.  They're only experience is with D&D 4e and Pathfinder, and for the first few week they really didn't understand what I meant when I said that HERO was cinematic in a way those games couldn't hope to be.

 

Now, after several weeks of combats, they're starting to understand what "cinematic" means.  They're understanding that combat that goes badly for them tends to end with most of the party knocked-out, not dead.  They're coming to understand that varying your attacks gives you huge advantages unlike most system, where it tends to be "This round I use my best attack. Repeat forever," and that incidental effects like Knockback can be powerful multipliers.  Like my players are all slowly cluing in on the idea that if they outspeed an opponent, they can get in Haymakers and recover their DCVs, and that Normal damage boosts Knockback over their regular Killing attacks, so I've started seeing the swordmaster do the classic "Sword Block, Sword Block, Spinning Heel Kick!" combo that every cinematic fantasy hero uses.  They're also in love with the whole PRE Attack mechanic and how it allows role-playing to actually influence the battlefield -- all of the low DEX characters are becoming battlecry experts!

 

In our last session, the epilogue to the first adventure arc, I attacked all of my players with hired thugs and assassins.  They had revealed damaging secrets of powerful aristocrats, and provoked a nasty response.  Here's the thing though:  I attacked them all in their own homes, after having spent the last few weeks making sure they all had their own digs.    I ran it as one huge combat with each of four PCs in a separate location, unable to rely on each other at all.  And because the HERO System produces heroes and not 1/4th of the requisite power needed to fight effectively, each of them survived.  At the same time as I was running the combat, I wove in descriptions of things happening in other areas -- NPCs who had helped the party and knew bits and pieces of the whole conspiracy being killed by assassins.  After the session, all of the players were talking about how the whole session had felt like a "montage" and using other cinematic terms to describe what had just happened.

 

It was the kind of thing I'd never try in a D&D clone.  It would have wiped out the party.  But its exactly the sort of play that HERO empowers, which is precisely why I use HERO.

That is absolutely beautiful, and the exact reason I use Hero.  I have run some CRAZY scenarios using Hero that never would have flown in other RPGs without violating their RAW so completely you might as well be playing FATE.  I also like to injure my player's characters with impunity.  With Hero, I do not fear that I will slaughter a character out of hand.  This is very difficult to do with most other game systems on the market. (not all, but a majority of them)

[Nolgroth]

Hey! What's wrong with FATE?

 

I know. I know. They are sort of on the opposite ends of the Crunchy scale.