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

[Chris Goodwin]

But I'm not saying that at all and I'm sure where you got the impression that I was.

I saw where you wrote this:

 

Focused books are fine and I'm not arguing against them but I'm talking about the calls to "simplify" the entire system the "Giant Garage full of Tools" as you put it. I don't know if it majority of players or not but most of the Hero fans I know, myself included got into it for the Power build and ability to construct things how I wanted. That's why I got Hero and it become my go to system. Because I didn't have to buy a new source book or wait for some one else to get around to making up what I wanted and publishing it. I could get under the hood and make a game how I wanted without deciphering the underlying principles (if there were any) like trying to create new Charms for Exalted. GURPS has a similar appeal but it takes more books to get the full tool kit and I don't care for how it does some things.

I may have misread, and if so I apologize.

 

I am disagreeing with the people that call for trashing the design system entirely.

I'm not doing this, and I'm not seeing anyone doing this. I, and other people, are calling for an introductory work that doesn't include the design system, because it's complex and gets in the way.

 

And I'm also saying that there have been perfectly usable HERO System games that have not included the power design system, and I've played in long running campaigns using them.

 

Edit: And when you say "trashing the design system entirely" I'm inferring you mean now and forevermore.  Whether or not that's what you're implying, I don't believe anyone intends that.

 

Without the tool kit aspect Hero isn't complicated at all but it isn't, IMO, all the special, especially not these days with a ton of games out there that do similar things. The Power/build system doesn't have to be included in everything no but I feel its a major, important part of the system that gives it distinction: the ability to build and customize. I think if you drop that or simplify it too much you risk alienating more players than you stand to gain. Hero's baseline mechanics are great but they're no so special and unique now they're going to pull allot of people in on their own, IMO.

But it doesn't have to be people's first introduction to the system.  And people are seeing it and choosing not to look at the rest of the system; not surprising, because in the full 6e v1 that's something like 300 pages.  I don't blame them for that.

 

And as I said compared to some of the systems I've played and seen people complaining about Hero's "complexity" playing I have to wonder how much is pure perception and how much there is to lose by catering too much to it instead of working for a way to change that perception.

As complex systems go, HERO isn't the most complex. But it is complex, and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend it's not. But the HERO System is also not a homogeneous mass of complexity, and we need to recognize that.

[phoenix240]

I saw where you wrote this:

 

I may have misread, and if so I apologize.

 

I'm not doing this, and I'm not seeing anyone doing this. I, and other people, are calling for an introductory work that doesn't include the design system, because it's complex and gets in the way.

 

And I'm also saying that there have been perfectly usable HERO System games that have not included the power design system, and I've played in long running campaigns using them.

 

 

Edit: And when you say "trashing the design system entirely" I'm inferring you mean now and forevermore.  Whether or not that's what you're implying, I don't believe anyone intends that.

 

But it doesn't have to be people's first introduction to the system.  And people are seeing it and choosing not to look at the rest of the system; not surprising, because in the full 6e v1 that's something like 300 pages.  I don't blame them for that.

 

As complex systems go, HERO isn't the most complex. But it is complex, and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend it's not. But the HERO System is also not a homogeneous mass of complexity, and we need to recognize that.

 

No one that I've seen in this thread has suggested utterly ditching the Powers system and I didn't claim you or anyone else in this thread did. But it is a pretty common sentiment in my experience outside these boards..It feels like you're continuing an argument you've had with other people with me. You accuse me of saying some things and holding opinions I haven't voiced. 

 

 I agree Hero isn't anywhere close to Rules Lite as it most commonly defined but it doesn't seem anymore complicated that several other popular game system out there today and significantly more intuitive than some when it comes to designing new things. I know there's been Hero System products without the build system and they're playable. I wasn't claiming otherwise but I'm not sure how much draw they'd have in the current market with so many similar alternatives as far as systems and settings go. 

 

The Power system and the ability to build it what really makes Hero System "special" and there's much more competition now as far as alternative basic systems go than back in the day. 

 

I guess it boils down to a difference of opinion on what we think make Hero "Hero" and we can agree to disagree. 

[Chris Goodwin]

No one that I've seen in this thread has suggested utterly ditching the Powers system and I didn't claim you or anyone else in this thread did. But it is a pretty common sentiment in my experience outside these boards..It feels like you're continuing an argument you've had with other people with me.  

 

 I agree Hero isn't anywhere close to Rules Lite as it most commonly defined but it doesn't seem anymore complicated that several other popular game system out there today and significantly more intuitive than some when it comes to designing new things. I know there's been Hero System products without the build system and they're playable. I wasn't claiming otherwise but I'm not sure how much draw they'd have in this market. The Power system and the ability to build it what really makes Hero System "special" and there's much more competition now as far as alternative basic systems go than back in the day. 

 

I guess it boils down to a difference of opinion on what we think make Hero "Hero" and we can agree to disagree.

Sure. I even agree with you that the Powers system is awesome and special. But it's also complex and can cause options paralysis, and is a roadblock to system introduction.

 

I've heard lots and lots of evidence of people introducing new folk to the system with premade characters. That gets them past the hump, gets them used to actually playing the game, and gives a context for what all the stuff in the Powers design system means.  But that doesn't change the fact that it's there and it's big and scary.

[zslane]

It seems to me that the first step for a newbie is getting past the conceptual hurdle of a point-buy system. That is, a system where you go shopping for your character's abilities with the currency of Character Points. Rather than letting the dice decide things for you, you choose for yourself. The example heroes and villains do the heavy lifting of tutorializing how to build a character. If the examples are basic enough, the fundamental concepts of building characters from the skills, talents, and powers in the game are fairly efficiently conveyed.

 

The problem is in the presentation of the example characters. Those found in Champions Complete are decent enough, but probably too elaborate for serving the "beginner tutorial" role they are intended to serve. Look at Champions 1st or 2nd edition. The examples are much simpler, and I think learning the basics of character construction from them is much easier. I keep pointing back at those earlier editions because, while the mechanics back then were a bit rougher around the edges, they were free from all the accumulated cruft that the 5th and 6th editions suffer from. Especially when you look at the pre-built characters.

 

Compare Mechanon through each iteration of the rules. His write-up gets more and more elaborate, he gets more and more powers, and the sheer amount of text it takes to enumerate and describe his abilities grows like a cancer. That trajectory is not good for keeping the system manageable for anyone but the most hardcore Champions veterans. It is certainly counter-productive to the goal of making the system newcomer-friendly.

[phoenix240]

I was reading an old issue of Different Worlds the other day, and there was an opinion piece in it imploring gamers to stop with all the 'system snobbery': denigrating systems they don't play or even have never played.

 

The article was published in 1980, and as I read it I marveled at how little has changed in that regard.

"Nerd Rage" can be awful. I've indulged in it more times than I like. 

[Tasha]

The rules actually have a paragraph stating the exact opposite...

 

More like in 5e when Steve changed the rounding rule and stated that you could only purchase CHA  with full points. no more 13 CHA for 1pt. Also, the gyrations Growth has gone through to make sure characters pay for every thing that Growth gives the PC. There are many other examples of this.

[ghost-angel]

True, but to be fair you're talking about one paragraph out of 780 pages of rules. Accurate or not, the perception persists, and IMX it does drive a lot of people away.

 

Yeah, but it's a damn important paragraph. Actually - it's a lot of paragraphs and it's so important it's in the Introduction; Before you ever get to anything resembling rules if flat out tells you that paying for everything is not needed and "the character sheet is not a tax return". This is a Core Philosophy by the time we get to 6E.

 

More like in 5e when Steve changed the rounding rule and stated that you could only purchase CHA  with full points. no more 13 CHA for 1pt. Also, the gyrations Growth has gone through to make sure characters pay for every thing that Growth gives the PC. There are many other examples of this.

 

 

Sure, Growth has changed a lot from 4E; but 25 points in 6E (1st level) get's you way more than 25 points worth of ability (in 6E you get 56points of abilities for 25 points; if you costed them separately w/ Non-Persistent/Unified it's 37points; even counting a Complication it's still 27points; the more levels you cost against the bigger that point difference becomes)... so, you're statement still falls short as a blanket concept of "paying for every ability and can't get ANYTHING for free" - you get a lot 'for free'.

 

This is also the same perception that said the Average DEX was climbing, when the average DEX of published characters never wavered over 20 (I have an extremely large excel spreadsheet with quantifiable proof) - Frankly, just about every 'perception' of the System on these boards is provably wrong with even a little bit of reading (er, a lot of reading, I can also say that reading the entire 5E and 6E line cover to cover really is no small task...); but my point stands:

 

Our perceptions are flat wrong and it happened somewhere down the line when one change or another bugged us... And yet no matter how much they're pointed out - I doubt I'll change anyone's mind.

 

Personally - the single most damaging thing I've ever seen about Hero (in any edition) is "long time hero gamers" raging on about how ruined it has become with each iteration with "perceptions" of what's wrong (and frankly once someone starts breaking out numbers for the claims it almost never holds true).

 

We are our preferred systems own worst enemy and this thread pretty much proves it. Anyone who wants to get into Hero just needs to read it's own fanbase railing on about how hard it's become, or can be, heck I'd run away too...

 

I think Hero could do with an Introductory Set as well, that I'm pretty sure most (all?) of us can agree on. But not for most of the reasons people have brought up here.

[Christopher R Taylor]

This is also the same perception that said the Average DEX was climbing, when the average DEX of published characters never wavered over 20

 

 

You must have started at 4th edition.

[bigdamnhero]

Yeah, but it's a damn important paragraph. Actually - it's a lot of paragraphs and it's so important it's in the Introduction; Before you ever get to anything resembling rules if flat out tells you that paying for everything is not needed and "the character sheet is not a tax return". This is a Core Philosophy by the time we get to 6E.

It may be Core to those of us on the inside, but as someone who has run a lot of convention games for Hero newbies it's definitely not the impression most outsiders have of Hero - most of whom have never and will never read the 6ed introduction because they're scared off by the sheer size of the books.

[Tasha]

Yeah, but it's a damn important paragraph. Actually - it's a lot of paragraphs and it's so important it's in the Introduction; Before you ever get to anything resembling rules if flat out tells you that paying for everything is not needed and "the character sheet is not a tax return". This is a Core Philosophy by the time we get to 6E.

 

 

 

Sure, Growth has changed a lot from 4E; but 25 points in 6E (1st level) get's you way more than 25 points worth of ability (in 6E you get 56points of abilities for 25 points; if you costed them separately w/ Non-Persistent/Unified it's 37points; even counting a Complication it's still 27points; the more levels you cost against the bigger that point difference becomes)... so, you're statement still falls short as a blanket concept of "paying for every ability and can't get ANYTHING for free" - you get a lot 'for free'.

 

This is also the same perception that said the Average DEX was climbing, when the average DEX of published characters never wavered over 20 (I have an extremely large excel spreadsheet with quantifiable proof) - Frankly, just about every 'perception' of the System on these boards is provably wrong with even a little bit of reading (er, a lot of reading, I can also say that reading the entire 5E and 6E line cover to cover really is no small task...); but my point stands:

 

Our perceptions are flat wrong and it happened somewhere down the line when one change or another bugged us... And yet no matter how much they're pointed out - I doubt I'll change anyone's mind.

 

Personally - the single most damaging thing I've ever seen about Hero (in any edition) is "long time hero gamers" raging on about how ruined it has become with each iteration with "perceptions" of what's wrong (and frankly once someone starts breaking out numbers for the claims it almost never holds true).

 

We are our preferred systems own worst enemy and this thread pretty much proves it. Anyone who wants to get into Hero just needs to read it's own fanbase railing on about how hard it's become, or can be, heck I'd run away too...

 

I think Hero could do with an Introductory Set as well, that I'm pretty sure most (all?) of us can agree on. But not for most of the reasons people have brought up here.

 

I don't think that Hero is Ruined. In fact many of the changes in 6e were really the right thing to do. I do dislike that Superheroic gaming seems to be more important than Heroic Gaming. I have very minor quibbles with the rules, nothing that makes me want to do anything about them.

 

BTW I never assumed that Dex was inflating. In 4e it was pretty well stated that the Average Dex was 23, and it appears that most stuff is written up since 4e with that in mind. Dex was all over the place in 3e and earlier. With Villains in Villians III having Dex as high as 45 (and more than one that high), but in 5er and earlier High Dex was a very good deal with all of the freebies it got for a character. BTW for Heroic Games average Dex/Spd hasn't budged ever. Probably because of the influence of Characteristic Maxima.

 

There is also a perception that point totals of Champions Characters has inflated since 1st edition. That one is harder to gauge, since recommended point totals didn't really happen until 4e. Also, there was a far different way of building characters in 3rd edition and earlier. Those editions people built characters that were mainly powers and stats, with a few skills to round out the build. There was a bit of a change in the way some people built Champions Characters, influenced mainly by players who played Heroic Level games like Fantasy Hero and Danger International. Those players became very used to having characters with a bunch of non combat skills. It was very natural to want to have the same thing on a Champions Character. Which was very difficult with 250pts or less. I know of many groups that started to allow Champions PCs to be built on 300pts (250pts for the old school Superpowers and stats +50pts or so for Skills to make a complete character). You can see this difference in character building philosophies in some of Cassandra's 250pt character threads (esp when I take the same character and build them in 6e with what I consider a full complement of skills).

[Ninja-Bear]

I really wished I youtubed the game I had plywd the other month. The game was ran by my friend who introduced me to Hero. He ran the Eacape from Steonghold scenerio. Originaly, I didn't run a chacater so I could help my three kids ages 11, 7,& 6. We had a blast! I say this because the way we played is what I think many people are advocating about playing a core (introductory) game. Let me tell you, the kids rolled dice and counted them up. Made skill checks when needed to and we rolled for knockback. (Honestly I thought my 6 yo was going to lose interest in the first maybe 10 min. Which was why I didn't at firat run a character. He only got restless by the third hour.) Fwiw, I used reskinned 4th Champions heroes and one villain for play.

[Ninja-Bear]

Tasha brings up a point about Cassandra and skills which I think exemplifies the point i've been screaming to get noticed. First neither way of the amount of skills is the best way, it comes down (as to just about everything else) to play style. Some like a minimalist approach and some want full crunch. I do think however for introductory module, minamalist is the best approach. I also think though it would be neat to show two variations of the same character to show how play style can ( and should) affect character build.

[Ninja-Bear]

True, but to be fair you're talking about one paragraph out of 780 pages of rules. Accurate or not, the perception persists, and IMX it does drive a lot of people away.

I know the impression I got from reading fifth rev.the first time was that it became very much about bean counting.

[bigdamnhero]

I do dislike that Superheroic gaming seems to be more important than Heroic Gaming.

As someone who played mostly heroic-level for 3ed & 4ed, I get you. But my understanding is that Hero's supers books have always sold far better than their heroic books, so we can't really blame them too much for focusing on that.

 

I know the impression I got from reading fifth rev.the first time was that it became very much about bean counting.

[nod] And that's the thing about perceptions: even when they're not accurate, they're real to the person who holds them.

[Surrealone]

Strangely, I prefer Average Heroic and Powerful Heroic games to even Low Superheroic ones.  There's just more grit and fun to be had when you're that much more likely to die from standard gunfire, IMHO.  (I guess I feel that a chance of death in any/every combat makes every choice within it that much more significant/meaningful.)

[ghost-angel]

One of the things I think an Introduction To Hero could benefit from is not about how we build Powers but how we build Characters;

 

We should take the recommended power levels breakdown and actually make them a hard coded focus of the Introduction;

 

To build a Character you get W Points for Characteristics, X Points for Skills, Y Points for Perks & Talents, and Z Points for Powers.

 

It adds a couple benefits, first it puts the point counting into small compartmental bins that also take a new player step by step through the whole creation process. It removes some of the post creation juggling of "I got everything I wanted now I have to trim down to the points allowed" part of creation that always causes issues and slows down the process.

 

Using prebuilt Powers is nice, and in some places can prove extremely beneficial; but Hero is about creating the Players vision, and even an introductory product should do what it can to present that.

[Tasha]

Strangely, I prefer Average Heroic and Powerful Heroic games to even Low Superheroic ones.  There's just more grit and fun to be had when you're that much more likely to die from standard gunfire, IMHO.  (I guess I feel that a chance of death in any/every combat makes every choice within it that much more significant/meaningful.)

 

I love heroic play, The lack of superpowers tend to bring players closer to their characters IMHO. You have much better RP than in many Champions games where people get bogged down in their superpowers. I don't play really gritty Heroic Games anymore and I do like that you can do insane things in Hero and not have your character get killed. Even a small amount of Resistant Defenses go a long way to simulate the kind of stuff you see in most action movies.

[Chris Goodwin]

I love heroic play, The lack of superpowers tend to bring players closer to their characters IMHO. You have much better RP than in many Champions games where people get bogged down in their superpowers. I don't play really gritty Heroic Games anymore and I do like that you can do insane things in Hero and not have your character get killed. Even a small amount of Resistant Defenses go a long way to simulate the kind of stuff you see in most action movies.

 

I love heroic play too, especially the gritty versions.  I miss them.  I've never been one who felt like GURPS did it better.  I feel like universal access to Powers turns everything into "Champions, but with":  Champions, but with swords.  Champions, but with guns.  

 

I wrote a whole document about how to do the old-school gritty, "low" heroic level games in Hero (the HERO System Low Heroic Protocols, right there in my signature).  

[zslane]

We tend to talk about the Hero System in its monolithic form, as the system that can serve everyone's needs regardless of genre or style of play. However, the system is actually different--as a game experience--depending on genre and style of play. Consequently, what needs to be "fixed" in order to maximize the system's effectiveness as a game for newcomers is going to be different.

 

I can't help but wonder if a lot of the arguing over what needs fixing is really just due to everyone having a different agenda without perhaps really realizing it. For instance, my views on what would make for an ideal Hero System For Newbies are heavily tainted by 1. my preference for Silver Age Four Color Supers, 2. my preference for using all the RAW for superheroic gaming, and 3. my strong feeling that regardless of the mechanics I'd like to change, the most important first order of business is revamping the presentation of the rules to a simpler, more streamlined form ala Champions Complete (or better yet, ala 4th ed. HSB).

 

So from my perspective, Champions Complete was a step in the right direction in terms of the size and density of the rules text. However, I think it took a huge step in the wrong direction by undoing the divestiture of system from genre support. We should have gotten a Hero System Complete, with just the core rules, and a Champions Complete with just the genre material. As to what I would put into a book like Hero System Complete, well, that's a debate that would never end as it is entirely tied to personal preferences and not universal truths.

 

But from someone else's perspective, one focused on heroic-level low fantasy for instance, the best steps to take would probably be completely different. I'm skeptical that consensus can be reached given the diversity of needs and goals when it comes to putting together the best "intro" version of the system.

[phoenix240]

One of the things I think an Introduction To Hero could benefit from is not about how we build Powers but how we build Characters;

 

We should take the recommended power levels breakdown and actually make them a hard coded focus of the Introduction;

 

To build a Character you get W Points for Characteristics, X Points for Skills, Y Points for Perks & Talents, and Z Points for Powers.

 

It adds a couple benefits, first it puts the point counting into small compartmental bins that also take a new player step by step through the whole creation process. It removes some of the post creation juggling of "I got everything I wanted now I have to trim down to the points allowed" part of creation that always causes issues and slows down the process.

 

Using prebuilt Powers is nice, and in some places can prove extremely beneficial; but Hero is about creating the Players vision, and even an introductory product should do what it can to present that.

 

 

Hero System's extreme flexibility, the power it grants GM and Player alike to craft their vision and have it represented in a solid mechanics framework that holds together and works (quite well, IMO) is the big draw it has in today's rpg market. Its what sets it apart. It can be intimidating to some people and that is an issue to consider. Personally, I think it can be handled more on approach and presentation. Have the basic tool kit along with setting and genre books that pare it down, show how you can create specifics by chipping the cruft until you have what you want with enough of the mechanics to by playable on their own but hint at more possibilities. Have the core rule books take it slow, introduce concepts step by step. That's what has worked for me at introducing quite a few new players (some who later become GMs) to Hero System. 

 

The difficult part will be overcoming the ingrained perception and prejudice though really that seems to have faded in most places particularly outside of rpg.net and its better there. Ironically, maybe a fallow period isn't a totally bad thing. 

[Ragitsu]

The tradeoff i've seen is that gamers often end up using three, four, five, or more systems for multiple genres/settings. Why not simply use one very robust toolkit-of-a-system for games that require rules crunchier than Fate?

[phoenix240]

The tradeoff i've seen is that gamers often end up using three, four, five, or more systems for multiple genres/settings. Why not simply use one very robust toolkit-of-a-system for games that require rules crunchier than Fate?

 

Tangent: But Fate is a system I just don't get. I don't mean its crunchy or complicated but there is something about that just don't click with me like I can't quite wrap my head around it. I do think some of getting system is like that. Some just mentally click more with how some people think than others. 

[Tasha]

Tangent: But Fate is a system I just don't get. I don't mean its crunchy or complicated but there is something about that just don't click with me like I can't quite wrap my head around it. I do think some of getting system is like that. Some just mentally click more with how some people think than others. 

 

I feel the same about FATE. It's got some great ideas, but talk about a system that is so open that your mind reels when you try to make a character. At least with Hero I can default to  Choosing powers out of the book and then come up with a concept that meets the mechanics. FATE you don't have that crutch at all.

[Surrealone]

The tradeoff i've seen is that gamers often end up using three, four, five, or more systems for multiple genres/settings. Why not simply use one very robust toolkit-of-a-system for games that require rules crunchier than Fate?

 

Probably because there's a lot of work involved in creating flavor -- and people don't like to needlessly reinvent the wheel.

 

As an example, I feel that Whitewolf does a much better job of modeling vampiric/magic/werewolf roleplay than Hero Systems.  Part of this is that magic tends to entail a lot of loose mechanics (i.e. handwaving) -- i.e. it's imprecise but still within player-agreeable tolerances.  By contrast, Hero System is a very granular/precise system in terms of builds, powers, capabilities, and mechanics -- making it ill-suited to a game that feels like Whitewolf's do ...  unless the players are mostly VPP users (and are proficient at modeling appropriate capabilities) -AND- the GM spends an asinine amount of time pre-building clan templates, discipline tree templates, and special pre-built handlers for things like diablerie and paradox.

 

​Why would a GM spend a LOT of needless time/effort to recreate flavor when there's a system that's already built and balanced for it?  Frankly, if you want to play a game that feels like Whitewolf's do -- it's probably worth the investment in their products to conserve the time/effort of remodeling them...

 

Now if the game doesn't have a specific flavor to it -- meaning it's not intended to feel like VTM, MTA, CoC, D&D, etc ...  then a generic toolbox is probably the way to start.  And as an aside, while Hero Systems is suitably generic, the very names of its powers naturally lend themselves to a Superhero feel ... which is why it's commonly cast in that mold even though it can do/be so much more.  (That's really its origin shining through, even today, I think...)

[phoenix240]

Speaking for myself, I find the effort of learning an entirely new system, its philosophy and its eccentricities every time I want to change genres or settings more effort than adapting Hero System to my needs.. I've run games featuring Werewolf and Vampire PCs with former white wolf players and they didn't feel more restricted using Hero. There was less handwaving involved even when it come using their abilities in creative ways. But that comes down to taste and play styles.