Discussion of Hero System's "Health" on rpg.net

[Ninja-Bear]

They can. 5e had a breakdown comparing combat to non-combat skills.

 

I think the basic underlying principle and comparisons translate to 6e easily enough.

They did in fifth? Must have missed it. Was it in the main book?

[Tasha]

They did in fifth? Must have missed it. Was it in the main book?

 

Probably in Ultimate Skill (Now renamed Hero System Skills, 99.99% the same book, only Seduction was changed to Charm)

[Tholomyes]

Probably in Ultimate Skill (Now renamed Hero System Skills, 99.99% the same book, only Seduction was changed to Charm)

In fact so much the same book that in the alphabetized skill descriptions, it goes Security Systems, Charm, Shadowing, since Charm is still alphabetized as Seduction.

[Vondy]

They did in fifth? Must have missed it. Was it in the main book?

Will look when I get home. On the water taxi right now. It's gorgeous out!

[ghost-angel]

I still fail to see how that adds to either gameplay or storytelling.

 

If you have a remarkably granular system with a brilliantly designed "fold up" structure so that you can pick just how fine-grained you want to go on any given skill...I don't see that helping you at all.  Quite the contrary, as it comes across as an attempt at a deterministic system for skills, which leads to things like "I know that it makes sense for your character with PS: Blacksmithing to be able to forge a sword, but you didn't purchase Weaponsmith, so you just can't seem to do it. If the system had intended for PS: Blacksmithing to cover making swords, they wouldn't have put in that other skill, now would they?"

 

In gameplay, you're looking at making the characters believable and playable...and overall to tell a good story that entertains the players (and GM).  Define what a given character does conceptually (i.e. "he's a doctor" or, for more specific campaigns, "he's a maxillofacial surgeon") and leave it at that. If you're worried about balance (and I have RARELY seen skills be unbalancing in the slightest), then have the GM place a premium on skills that are likely to be of significant use in the campaign and a discount on skills that are unlikely to come up (e.g. "There's not going to be too much call or opportunity for a potter in this campaign....but the forensic examiner is going to be called upon quite a bit.").

 

That skips over the ability to go broad or narrow ... that's my general complaint: Hero does a decebt job describing Skills, it does a poor job describing how to set up a Skill System for your game.

 

In one game PS: Blacksmith may be all you ever need to make and repair weapons.

 

In another game PS: Blacksmith itself may be inappropriate and you have to buy exactly what you're good at: Weaponsmith: Common Melee Weapons & Weaponsmith: Common Firearms.

 

A third campaign might decide that just Weaponsmith itself will cover making any and all weapons, master of arms style.

 

Yes, it's more fiddly tool-kitting BS, but that's the core of the System. Individual campaign books should nail down exactly the kind of granularity the campaign calls for (or enterprising groups can replace it with their comfort level: super detailed or super broad).

[Simon]

That skips over the ability to go broad or narrow ... that's my general complaint: Hero does a decebt job describing Skills, it does a poor job describing how to set up a Skill System for your game.

 

In one game PS: Blacksmith may be all you ever need to make and repair weapons.

 

In another game PS: Blacksmith itself may be inappropriate and you have to buy exactly what you're good at: Weaponsmith: Common Melee Weapons & Weaponsmith: Common Firearms.

 

A third campaign might decide that just Weaponsmith itself will cover making any and all weapons, master of arms style.

 

Yes, it's more fiddly tool-kitting BS, but that's the core of the System. Individual campaign books should nail down exactly the kind of granularity the campaign calls for (or enterprising groups can replace it with their comfort level: super detailed or super broad).

I understand the concern.  Really.  But now flip it on its head: how often have you had that come up in a campaign in a meaningful way?

 

If the campaign is meant to get down to the nitty-gritty level of "you have training as a blacksmith, but that guy has training as a blacksmith and a metallurgist...so you're not going to be able to do what he does" that makes perfect sense...and is something that you know about during character creation.  So you define your character appropriately.  During gameplay, it's already known that the character that is defined as having both metallurgical and blacksmithing knowledge is going to be better suited for certain tasks.  

 

You don't need to have an explicit list of skills to define all areas of knowledge in order to accomplish that.  In fact, the explicit list of skills detracts from that very idea and gets you bogged down in the morass of what combination of skills to buy to represent a character that is a skilled blacksmith with metallurgical knowledge vs. just buying a skill of "Modern Blacksmith" and agreeing with the GM on what that means/entails.

 

If you want a character that has practiced a variety of trades, then purchase multiple skills to represent that -- one per trade.

 

If you want a character that can easily learn new trades, then purchase multiple skills to represent the trades that the character has already learned and a "skill enhancer" to represent their ability to quickly/easily pick up a new one for character growth.

 

Again, the long/detailed skill listing does nothing for gameplay from what I've seen - it just complicates character creation and detracts from storytelling during the game.

[Simon]

Just a thought what if skill levels coukd be bought similar to combat skill levels? Something like occupation skills cost 5pts. but it covers more than traditional 3 pt skills?

Don't get me started on CSLs ;-)

 

With the new decoupling of OCV/DCV (which I actually quite like), I think that CSLs are a relic that need to go away.  Better handled through limited purchases of OCV and DCV (with a new Advantage that allows one to be used for the other).  Weapon-specific levels then make MUCH more sense and balance better, as the Limitation can be based on how likely it is for the character to be using that particular weapon.  

 

A barbarian in a fantasy campaign that always uses a broadsword really shouldn't get much of a discount for levels with the broadsword....some, sure...but not as much as the dark champions character.

[Vondy]

They did in fifth? Must have missed it. Was it in the main book?

 

FRED doesn't explicitly say "background skills," but the Skill Level's description on p. 48-49 says:

 

"5 points: +1 for a group of similar skills (e.g., +1 with all Agility Skills)."

 

"8 points: +1 with all non-combat skills."

 

First, "non-combat skills" certainly applies to most non-combat skills.

 

Second, I read the example "Agility Skills" as as descriptive rather than proscriptive.

 

Tangentially, would that not include "PS: Social Dancing" if it were purchased as a dex skill?

 

FRED also says...

 

"Skills may be related without being in the same category; the GM is the final judge of whether or not skills are related."

 

In any event, I have always interpreted FRED as allowing you to treat a related group of background skills as a "category."

 

Lastly, Steve did validate this reading on his skill level table on p. 301 of Skills (and in TUS).

 

There the expanded description of 5 point levels includes "e.g., all Knowledge Skills" as one of the examples.

 

I did not take it as "new," however. It was always strongly implied by a careful read of FRED.

[Vondy]

That skips over the ability to go broad or narrow ... that's my general complaint: Hero does a decebt job describing Skills, it does a poor job describing how to set up a Skill System for your game.

 

In one game PS: Blacksmith may be all you ever need to make and repair weapons.

 

In another game PS: Blacksmith itself may be inappropriate and you have to buy exactly what you're good at: Weaponsmith: Common Melee Weapons & Weaponsmith: Common Firearms.

 

A third campaign might decide that just Weaponsmith itself will cover making any and all weapons, master of arms style.

 

Yes, it's more fiddly tool-kitting BS, but that's the core of the System. Individual campaign books should nail down exactly the kind of granularity the campaign calls for (or enterprising groups can replace it with their comfort level: super detailed or super broad).

 

Skills p.9 proposes using Professional Skills as a means of combining multiple skills. I think Steve's insistence that such a skill be bought at 20- and leverage the exceptional skills rules (also in TUS) might be wonky and require some refinement, but the seed is there. 

[Scott Baker]

Second, I read the example "Agility Skills" as as descriptive rather than proscriptive.

The Skill List on 5ER 47 makes it prescriptive by identifying the Type for each skill. Agility is one of the types of skills.

[Vondy]

The Skill List on 5ER 47 makes it prescriptive by identifying the Type for each skill. Agility is one of the types of skills.

 

Which means nothing vis-a-vis whether or not the example is proscriptive.

 

Different word. Different meaning. One mandates, the other forbids.

 

The example only identifies one type of skill and prescribes its relevant breadth.

 

Inferring non-characteristic based skill levels are not types of skills does not follow. Again, it is not proscriptive.

 

AK, KS, PS, LS, and SS are also types of skills.

 

And, just to put a bow on it, here what Steve said about it:

 

"As indicated in the Rules FAQ and TUS 301, a character has to buy 5-point Skill Levels with a specific type of Background Skill (e.g., all KSs, all SSs)" 

 

Its not just in TUS. Its also the Rules FAQ.  

 

In other words, that the categories of background skills are skill types is RAW.

 

If you read it with a careful eye, the meaning in FRED is plain.

[Scott Baker]

Which means nothing vis-a-vis whether or not the example is proscriptive.

 

Different word. Different meaning. One mandates, the other forbids.

 

The example only identifies one type of skill and prescribes its relevant breadth.

 

Inferring non-characteristic based skill levels are not types of skills does not follow. Again, it is not proscriptive.

 

AK, KS, PS, LS, and SS are also types of skills.

 

And, just to put a bow on it, here what Steve said about it:

 

"As indicated in the Rules FAQ and TUS 301, a character has to buy 5-point Skill Levels with a specific type of Background Skill (e.g., all KSs, all SSs)" 

 

Its not just in TUS. Its also the Rules FAQ.  

 

In other words, that the categories of background skills are skill types is RAW.

 

If you read it with a careful eye, the meaning in FRED is plain.

I wasn't addressing any of your ongoing "discussion", just pointing out the specific reference in the rules regarding what an Agility skill is, which you seemed unaware of or were ignoring. I have no idea how you think that infers anything I might think regarding non-characteristic based skill levels, or that Background skills aren't RAW.

[Ninja-Bear]

Vondy iirc, +1 to all agility skills only apply to agility skills bought. You cannot add it to any free skills you have which is sorta odd in that there are free combat maneuvers which the 5pt. CSL add to no problem.

[phoenix240]

I understand the concern.  Really.  But now flip it on its head: how often have you had that come up in a campaign in a meaningful way?

 

If the campaign is meant to get down to the nitty-gritty level of "you have training as a blacksmith, but that guy has training as a blacksmith and a metallurgist...so you're not going to be able to do what he does" that makes perfect sense...and is something that you know about during character creation.  So you define your character appropriately.  During gameplay, it's already known that the character that is defined as having both metallurgical and blacksmithing knowledge is going to be better suited for certain tasks.  

 

You don't need to have an explicit list of skills to define all areas of knowledge in order to accomplish that.  In fact, the explicit list of skills detracts from that very idea and gets you bogged down in the morass of what combination of skills to buy to represent a character that is a skilled blacksmith with metallurgical knowledge vs. just buying a skill of "Modern Blacksmith" and agreeing with the GM on what that means/entails.

 

If you want a character that has practiced a variety of trades, then purchase multiple skills to represent that -- one per trade.

 

If you want a character that can easily learn new trades, then purchase multiple skills to represent the trades that the character has already learned and a "skill enhancer" to represent their ability to quickly/easily pick up a new one for character growth.

 

Again, the long/detailed skill listing does nothing for gameplay from what I've seen - it just complicates character creation and detracts from storytelling during the game.

 

Maybe for you it doesn't but its helped game play for the games I've been in and has been one of the selling points that brought some players to Hero for us. They were tired WoD style skill list where 25 incredibly broad things represented all knowledge and experienced characters looked the same or fluffy "make your own skills/Facts/Traits" systems that bogged down in determining what exactly those abilities mean. Everyone doesn't feel that way but, IME, more than a few do. So while I can't answer for ghost-angel its mattered quite a bit in my campaigns.

 

Its probably mattered little to not at all in other games. That's why the ability to narrow or pull back is such a great feature, IMO. If we're talking about some sort of beginner's version of Hero System or a Lite version, I'm okay with that but I'd hate to loose that sort of fine control in the core rules. This goes back to what I said earlier, that there really seems to have been a shift in the spirit of game and the fanbase more towards One True Way and eliminating the options that facilitate other preferences offered up as improvements. 

[Simon]

I think we're actually close to saying the same thing.  The "One True Way" attitude is coming about (IMO) because the rules are attempting to be deterministic -- defining all of the fine-grained options that are available to piece together any given concept.  Remove that deterministic attitude from the rules and you eliminate much of that problem.  What I'm suggesting with Skills is precisely that -- removing the deterministic skill listing (which can never cover the full variety of skills/endeavors no matter how detailed it becomes).  This doesn't mean that you lose the granularity, it means that it's up to you/the GM to determine the level of granularity you want in your Skills and have an understanding of what they represent.  For some, "Physician, 13-" may be enough.  For others, "Maxillofacial Surgeon, 15-" may be the desired level of granularity.  For others still, they may want to have a listing going through all of the knowledge and "sub-skills" that a maxillofacial surgeon possesses.  You don't need to have that all spelled out in an explicit list of skills in the core rules -- that actively detracts from your ability to define your level and to build a character "your way" rather than the "One True Way".

 

For the amount that skills (non-combat) come into play during a game, you don't need to justify huge point expenditures.  Well-defined skill lists/background on a character should be encouraged.  

[ghost-angel]

I'm pretty sure we're all on the same page regarding how Skills could/should work in the system. As they're currently presented in the rules, however, it doesn't appear to actually accommodate these ideas. Currently the system is very much "here's the skill list" and does little to show why/how one can shift the detail to taste.

[Vondy]

Vondy iirc, +1 to all agility skills only apply to agility skills bought. You cannot add it to any free skills you have which is sorta odd in that there are free combat maneuvers which the 5pt. CSL add to no problem.

I didn't say you could.

 

I said the example merely referenced ONE type of skill and did not preclude other types of skills, or indicate only characteristic based skills were valid types of skills where skill levels are concerned.

 

Agility, intellect, interaction, area, knowledge, professional, and science skills are all ceremonies / types of skills. However, both 5e RAW and Steve's ruling explicitly state the GM is the final arbiter of what skills are related. If they say "all anthropology skills" are related, you can apply skill levels to them even if they include PS, KS, and Ss.

 

What is more the 5e text itself says skills don't necessarily have to be in the same category to be regarded as such. See that quote above. RAW supports a very flexible application of skill levels.

[Vondy]

I'm pretty sure we're all on the same page regarding how Skills could/should work in the system. As they're currently presented in the rules, however, it doesn't appear to actually accommodate these ideas. Currently the system is very much "here's the skill list" and does little to show why/how one can shift the detail to taste.

It's more presentation than mechanics, I think. The system itself is very flexible and extensible, but in the main rules text that is all strongly implied rather than explicitly stated. It's borne out to a degree in the Rules FAQ, but the explicit discussion occurs in TUS and 6e Skills. Unfortunately, many people take RAW at face value without catching the nuance inherent in the structure and examples.

[Ninja-Bear]

I didn't say you could.

 

I said the example merely referenced ONE type of skill and did not preclude other types of skills, or indicate only characteristic based skills were valid types of skills where skill levels are concerned.

 

Agility, intellect, interaction, area, knowledge, professional, and science skills are all ceremonies / types of skills. However, both 5e RAW and Steve's ruling explicitly state the GM is the final arbiter of what skills are related. If they say "all anthropology skills" are related, you can apply skill levels to them even if they include PS, KS, and Ss.

 

What is more the 5e text itself says skills don't necessarily have to be in the same category to be regarded as such. See that quote above. RAW supports a very flexible application of skill levels.

Not arguing with you at all. Im just pointing out that skills and combat skills work differently. Let me give you an example of what I would like to do with skills. In writing up goons for DC:TAS I created a new type of goon-the scientific goon-you know the ones that help all the mad scientists. I would like to just have a general scientist skill. Im mean really usually its the mad scientist has all the brains and skills.

 

Btw I could be overthinking it.

[Tasha]

Well, one example of a very successful botique game shop with outsourced work is the savage world's crowd. The Giants are stable because their table top RPG'S are only one of a diverse brand. FFG, for instance, makes a ton of money on board and tactical games and leverages licensing (star wars! and cthulu). Wizards? Magic is a huge revenue stream. And they STILL outsource art and a lot of writing on the RPG side. Hero is Jason and zero full time staff. Green Ronin doesn't have much staff, either. They have a license that drives the sakes they pay their freelancers with (DC). Hero is Jason and a warehouse. Without a big license infusion, it's fan - driven products and profit sharing that will get product to market. The only problem I see is that means there isn't a line developer building a consistent set of products.

Yeah, one thing I see out of Pinnicle is that they have a new kickstarter every 5-6 months. New gameworld/genre with lots of mini adventures and mini campaigns attached. They offer themed Dice, Poker Chips, GM Screen, and Miniatures. (often as Stretch Goals). Their Kickstarters tend to be pretty exciting with lots of reasons to pledge for a bunch of stuff. I really wish Hero would do something like this.

 

To answer a question WAY up stream. Pinnacle Entertainment is Three employees. Shane Hensley, Jodi Black and Clint Black. I don't think there are more employees than that. Also. I am not 100% sure that those primaries are even full time employees.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I do think that Hero could do with more multimedia grade school flavored stuff to appeal to modern players.  Cards, dice, chips, tiles, stuff that is part merchandising and part goodies for players to handle like crayons and construction paper to help their apparently stunted imagination.  The advantage of kickstarter is that if you don't get the sales you hoped for, the real expense is taken care of: the up front cost (and publicity, in part).

 

Like they say about medicine, the second pill costs a penny, the problem is that first pill cost hundreds of millions.

[Vondy]

Not arguing with you at all. Im just pointing out that skills and combat skills work differently. Let me give you an example of what I would like to do with skills. In writing up goons for DC:TAS I created a new type of goon-the scientific goon-you know the ones that help all the mad scientists. I would like to just have a general scientist skill. Im mean really usually its the mad scientist has all the brains and skills.

 

Btw I could be overthinking it.

 

I agree they work differently, but I wasn't addressing the Combat Skill Level entry (p. 35) when I wrote my post. I was addressing the Skill Level entry (in the 40's page-wise). They are separate entries in the text! I was only speaking about non-combat skills.

 

I'd be lazy and give Igor:

 

PS: Mad Scientist's Assistant 14-

 

As for a general science skill, why not:

 

SS: General Science 10-

[Narf the Mouse]

I do think that Hero could do with more multimedia grade school flavored stuff to appeal to modern players.  Cards, dice, chips, tiles, stuff that is part merchandising and part goodies for players to handle like crayons and construction paper to help their apparently stunted imagination.  The advantage of kickstarter is that if you don't get the sales you hoped for, the real expense is taken care of: the up front cost (and publicity, in part).

 

Like they say about medicine, the second pill costs a penny, the problem is that first pill cost hundreds of millions.

Same with everything. Computer parts initially come out in the server, enterprise and enthusiast spaces is because those groups have the money to pay the prototype and factory startup surcharges.

 

For that matter, I once saw a listing on the webpage of a company (years ago, back when a 250GB SSD was a big thing) for a 16 TB SSD. Price? $40k (USD, I presumed). No store listing, no store locator, no contact page. In short, "if you don't know where to get these, you can't afford them anyway." Who'd buy that? Companies for which a half-second saved by 40k can easily be 1,000k plus.

[Ninja-Bear]

I agree they work differently, but I wasn't addressing the Combat Skill Level entry (p. 35) when I wrote my post. I was addressing the Skill Level entry (in the 40's page-wise). They are separate entries in the text! I was only speaking about non-combat skills.

 

I'd be lazy and give Igor:

 

PS: Mad Scientist's Assistant 14-

 

As for a general science skill, why not:

 

SS: General Science 10-

Yes Vondy I got what your were talking about non-combat skills. Again I questioned that it seems odd that they work differently and that I think that buy paying a higher point cost, they should work the same. Its just a glitch in the system. Ps thanks for the mad scientist skill.

[Vondy]

Yes Vondy I got what your were talking about non-combat skills. Again I questioned that it seems odd that they work differently and that I think that buy paying a higher point cost, they should work the same. Its just a glitch in the system. Ps thanks for the mad scientist skill.

 

I'm confused. Where are we paying a higher cost?