Use of the Hero System's Older Editions

[zslane]

But it's painfully obvious I'm a statistical outlier in the broader RPG community. From a marketing/attracting new players perspective, I still think it would've made more sense to save all that for an Advanced GM Guide or whatever.

I agree whole-heartedly.

 

The 4th ed. BBB was the last version of the rules with which I could easily recruit new players to the system. Between it's awesome cover art, highly readable text, and robust supplemental support, getting new players to try Champions 4th was a pretty easy sell. Then came Fred, with its unremarkable black cover, intimidating size, and dense text, and it became much tougher for me to convince new players to jump in. I can certainly understand the appeal of using 4th ed. as part of a recruiting strategy.

 

You know, players I knew used to take pride in knowing all the Hero System rules, but starting with 5e, I found fewer and fewer new players making that effort. To me it shows that you can improve the system and undermine its usability at the same time.

[Vondy]

One issue I have with 5e and 6e is "bean-counterism." 4e did have some imbalances that needed to be adjusted for. But, 5e went to far. I found the near obsessive-compulsive way in which talents were broken down into power builds, and in which senses were re-costed and made increasingly granular, introduced some imbalances of its own. Consistent internal costing and actual utility at the game table are not always one and the same thing. Getting costs right, especially in a toolkit system, are as much an art as they are a science / mathematical exercise. 

 

Some examples of what I'm talking about are Instant Change, Never Look Mussed (Pulp), HRRP, rebuilding Regeneration as a convoluted Healing construct, and the inflationary adders for Detect. While not universally true, a lot of the resulting costs were disproportionately high for what often amounts to a genre appropriate trope or something that could other-wise be hand-waived. I don't mind all the examples, but presenting talents (shorthand items) with what looks like an arcane formula instead of "Instant Change (5)" is off-putting, potentially intimidating, clutters character sheets, and is bad presentation. 

 

Now, with all that said, I found the clarifications and examples in 5e great. I find it eminently playable and don't mind using it. But, it is also a much harder-sell for new players than 4e (warts and all) and introduces costing taxes that neuters the utility (like Detect), or overprices others (HRRP), or renders them necessarily complex (regeneration, instant change, etc). For me, its a case of logic being taken to an unreasonable extreme. 4e did need a good bit of work, and 5e brought a lot of good to the table and did fix some things, but it also introduced its own set of problems.

 

Its a question of which set of problems you prefer to deal with - and that is a personal, subjective, amoral proposition. For me, I have moved to a "stripped down" 5e with old-school regeneration added back in. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I suppose I have to ask, why is this a bad thing? Yes, armor piercing attacks will vary in effectiveness based on the enemy's defenses, but 13 is still larger than 12, and if the HERO design philosophy includes "Effects of equal point value should be roughly equal in effectiveness", then that being only 1 point of superiority seems about right.

In a game where the Def:DC ratio averages about 2.5, and hardened defenses are a rarity, I'd agree. That's not the norm set by the guideline table, and my experience of high DEF characters (PC or NPC) was that they had a high proportion of Hardened defenses because the player or GM did not want this highly defended tank to be efficiently taken down by AP attacks. Those higher DEF:DC ratios also make KA's more valuable, as has been analyzed to death in prior threads.

 

You could face a foe with hardened defenses, sure, but I wouldn't consider it "not worth it" just because of that.

Again, depends on frequency. If I average 13 points instead of 12 past defenses, and 10% of characters have hardened defenses, such that I get no STUN through at all, then the AP is averaging [13 x 90% + 0 x 10% =] 11.7. A consistent 12 from a normal attack is better.

 

Characters with low base DCs, such as speedsters and martial artists, will still very much want it

So, if I am in a 12DC game with defenses averaging 20, do I want a 10d6 Blast or a 6 1/2d6 AP blast? 35 - 25 = 10. 23 - [25/2] = 13. AP wins if I can be confident many foes will not have Hardened defenses. If they average 20? Well, it's 15 or 13 past defenses so, again, the added efficiency you attribute to AP arises because your DEF:DC ratio is higher than what I believe the pricing was based on.

 

8d6 will manage 28 - 10 = 18 vs 35 - 20 = 15 (but less than the 42 - 20 = 22 norm). That doesn't feel so bad, especially when we consider some opponents will harden their defenses.

 

Additionally, I don't see the Harden/Armor Piercing arms race as a very elegant solution or, really, the right one (I have my own opinions on those character taxes, namely CON, but that's probably a discussion for another thread, but in short, adding more character taxes isn't a solution I like).

It's no different from a DEX arms race, a DC/Defense/CON arms race, an IOCV/DCV arms race, etc. That's not to say it's good - only that it's a drop in the bucket compared to what we already have for "character taxes".

 

 

For the record, armor piercing surprised me at 1/4 and I sense that its too cheap for what it does, particularly at the superheroic level but have not tested it out extensively.

 

Old school 12d6 or 8d6ap  vs new 12d6 vs 9½d6ap, that's a pretty big jump.

[bigdamnhero]

To me it shows that you can improve the system and undermine its usability at the same time.

Yes, but I think it depends on exactly what sort of "usability" you're dialing for. If your goal is to create "The Ultimate Gaming Toolkit" that lets you build whatever you want without being limited by anyone else's preconceptions, then I think 5ed & 6ed achieved that goal remarkably well. OTOH if your goal is to create something that will be marketable to more than a handful of us...maybe not so much.

 

Remember the phase in RPGs years ago where the trend was towards increasing realism? A number of RPGs made really great strides in that direction, only to find out at the end they had sacrificed too much playability in the process, and it turned out that playability was what gamers wanted above all else. I almost feel like Hero has followed a similar trajectory in pursuit of versatility & rules consistency. And while I would argue (and have, repeatedly) that those increases don't have to detract from playability, I think there's no question that it appears that way from the outside and that drives away a lot of potential new players.

[zslane]

Yes, but I think it depends on exactly what sort of "usability" you're dialing for. If your goal is to create "The Ultimate Gaming Toolkit" that lets you build whatever you want without being limited by anyone else's preconceptions, then I think 5ed & 6ed achieved that goal remarkably well.

I feel quite strongly that 4th ed. achieved that goal just as well. Sure, it needed some clarifications and some tweaks here and there, but the presentation was far superior, IMO, because it was so much easier to read and absorb. There was so little clutter to get in the way of digesting the rules. And the system wasn't overspecifying things that didn't warrant it, unlike 5e and later.

 

4th ed. felt to me very much like "The Ultimate Gaming Toolkit," and nothing in the 5th or 6th editions made the system feel any more like that, but certainly reduced digestability and overall usability (because combing through a set of rules that are twice as long and at least 50% denser per page takes a lot longer--to say nothing of the increased incidents of such consultation rendered necessary by a set of rules that can't be wholly digested anymore).

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well the playability, learnability, and intimidation factors all would have been better dealt with if, as many suggested in the forums here as 6th was being worked on, a big book with all the details and rules was made, and a stripped down more lean version for players was released as well.

 

Nobody has a problem with the Player's Handbook/DM Guide model.  They expect the GM to need more details and specific information.  Its an appealing approach, and Hero is really not all that complicated - certainly no more so than it was with 4th edition, when it comes down to actually playing and building characters.  There are just more options now and more specific, clear ways to different builds.  It just looks intimidating as heck.

[zslane]

Nobody has a problem with the Player's Handbook/DM Guide model.

Actually, I do (have a problem with it), for the Hero System anyway. It simply doesn't need, nor benefit from, such a model, IMO.

[Doc Democracy]

However, I do not think there is a huge problem with a players guide - though these would need to be genre specific I think.

 

There is so much that you can focus on and worry about as a player, it would be useful to have something that gave you permission to focus on stuff and how to lever the best playing experience from your game.

 

As a player in a superhero universe what should I be thinking about.  What should I be looking for the GM to give me and how should I approach the design of a character (not the actual build stuff but more about roleplaying a superhero).  There are so many differences between superheroes and other genres that it is almost stupid to expect players to get themselves up to speed.

 

My biggest concerns as a player are whether my powers are cool and I get a chance to do the cool things I imagined in my head.  I want some story-time where I accomplish things and I want my contributions to be significant to the game world (though that might be specific to me!)

 

The player type thing could be repeated and expanded - the intro to superhero worlds from the Champions genre book - some general guidance on key aspects of the game to think about and how to think more creatively about powers and skills.  How to make complications a positive thing in game enjoyment terms.  How to think about and use the speed chart.  How to benchmark your character and define a niche for him in his team.  How to ensure you cover the bases in terms of getting the spotlight.  How to think about advancement - slow cover of discovered weaknesses or big radiation accident.

 

I think this could be a positive thing, potentially be of value outside the HERO ghetto, and something that all players might want to buy even if they dont spring for the rules.

 

Would also be the opportunity for HERO to produce something narrative and fluffy and rather than hard and gamist.  :-)

 

Doc

[Christopher R Taylor]

Actually, I do (have a problem with it), for the Hero System anyway. It simply doesn't need, nor benefit from, such a model, IMO. 

So you're saying a simplified set of rules without all the careful explanations, details on how different modifiers interact with it, examples, and specific rules is a bad idea?  That having a separate book with all those rules for those who prefer them and need them also available is problematic and the Hero system would not benefit from this?  That's your position?

[Vondy]

So you're saying a simplified set of rules without all the careful explanations, details on how different modifiers interact with it, examples, and specific rules is a bad idea?  That having a separate book with all those rules for those who prefer them and need them also available is problematic and the Hero system would not benefit from this?  That's your position?

 

An alternative approach would be to divide one rule book into three sections: 1) the basic rules / player section, 2) a GM's vault with in-depth explanations / advice, 3) and examples. You could get started with section one and then expand with the others.

[Christopher R Taylor]

An alternative approach would be to divide one rule book into three sections: 1) the basic rules / player section, 2) a GM's vault with in-depth explanations / advice, 3) and examples. You could get started with section one and then expand with the others.

 

 

The problem with this is that you end up with another $75+ book.  The Hero ruleset was so expensive not because Steve gouged everyone, but because its expensive to print big books.  Having a smaller, simpler book then a big heavy one with all the stuff means you have a cheaper introduction to Hero.

So, now, basically, we have that with Champions/Fantasy Hero Complete and the big books.

 

[Vondy]

The problem with this is that you end up with another $75+ book.  The Hero ruleset was so expensive not because Steve gouged everyone, but because its expensive to print big books.  Having a smaller, simpler book then a big heavy one with all the stuff means you have a cheaper introduction to Hero.

So, now, basically, we have that with Champions/Fantasy Hero Complete and the big books.

 

 

Which, I think, are a fine introductory books. Anything fancy can go into APG style works.

[zslane]

What Vondy said.

 

I always look at the 4th ed. for how to do this "right" for the Hero System. The 4e HSR is a perfectly good "core system" player's book and GM's book rolled into one. And it only weighs in at 220 pages. It doesn't need to be divided into more than one volume, and for very good reason: the Hero System is not so complicated that it needs it. In fact, the system is so compact and elegant that everything you need to understand to play anything lives in those 220 pages.

 

For GMs who want more advice on how to use the system to run a specific type of campaign, they can turn to genre books like Champions and/or campaign setting books like Champions Universe or The Valdorian Age.

 

If players want another several hundred pages of examples, then "advanced player guides" are a good delivery mechanism. But let's not pretend that they are a necessary component of the "core system".

 

I think the fact that the Complete books do a perfectly adequate job of presenting the Hero System in 240 pages proves my point. Hell, those books bundle in genre material and still manage to fit it all into fewer pages than the BBB. That's impressive. And it shows how many pages it really takes to deliver the Hero System to readers.

[ghost-angel]

Personally, I think the Complete books are passable, but fall short of adequate by about 100 pages.... After reading them cover to cover I'm actually disappointed in them.

[Tasha]

Keep in mind that with 4e Champions (the BBB), nearly 1/3 of the page count was take up by the Champions Sourcebook.

[Alcamtar]

Personally, I think the Complete books are passable, but fall short of adequate by about 100 pages.... After reading them cover to cover I'm actually disappointed in them.

 

What would you add?

[ghost-angel]

What would you add?

 

 

I would not have pared down the rules descriptions (especially in the Powers section) as far as Complete did. It was a step too far back.

[zslane]

Keep in mind that with 4e Champions (the BBB), nearly 1/3 of the page count was take up by the Champions Sourcebook.

That's why I'm pretty careful to refer specifically to the 4th ed. HSR when discussing "core rules" books. The BBB was a gorgeous product worthy of all the praise I can heap upon it. But as you say, a good third of it was the Champions genre book simply glommed onto the end of the HSR. The BBB is really just two books under one cover: the HSR and Champions, and can be (and probably should be) discussed as two separate books.

[ghost-angel]

Same thing for Champions Complete: two books under one cover. Hero System and Champions. And the System side of Complete is even less complete than the System side of the BBB.

[Surrealone]

For GMs who want more advice on how to use the system to run a specific type of campaign, they can turn to genre books like Champions and/or campaign setting books like Champions Universe or The Valdorian Age.

 

If players want another several hundred pages of examples, then "advanced player guides" are a good delivery mechanism. But let's not pretend that they are a necessary component of the "core system".

This is spot-on.  The above approach endorses a small set of core rules with well-selected examples only for powers that are complex enough to absolutely require them ... and then allows the purchase of add-on, pre-built material (which serves for additional examples) if desired.  It's what the 4th Ed. HSR did 'right'  in combination with all the 4th Ed. sourcebooks.  (This approach actually gives one a -compelling reason- to buy the add-on material, as well.)

 

Personally, I think the Complete books are passable, but fall short of adequate by about 100 pages.... After reading them cover to cover I'm actually disappointed in them.

Having read CC, I was also disappointed.  I don't think it needs another 100 pages, but problematic errata should have been addressed and it feels a bit too stripped of examples.  To be fair, examples are a tough thing to balance, I know...

[bigdamnhero]

4th ed. felt to me very much like "The Ultimate Gaming Toolkit," and nothing in the 5th or 6th editions made the system feel any more like that, but certainly reduced digestability and overall usability (because combing through a set of rules that are twice as long and at least 50% denser per page takes a lot longer--to say nothing of the increased incidents of such consultation rendered necessary by a set of rules that can't be wholly digested anymore).

I think we're saying more-or-less the same thing, just saying it differently. You feel like 4th was the perfect balance, whereas 5th & 6th went too far in one direction. I'm simply pointing out that 5th & 6th went further in that direction, that it was obviously a conscious choice to do so, and assuming that was their goal to go as far in that direction as was plausible, then they accomplished that goal quite well. Whether or not that's a good thing, individually and in terms of the RPG market, is another question.

[Chris Goodwin]

I call first through third editions, first generation Hero.  4, 5, and 5er, second gen.  6e is either third gen or 2.5 gen, I'm not sure.

[zslane]

Speaking of reasons to use older editions: the wealth of published characters and adventures. Converting them to 6th is a pain for a number of reasons, which makes just sticking with the native edition for those characters a more attractive choice. One of those painful reasons is the decoupling of figured and primary characteristics and the change that makes to character point totals.

 

I looked through my copy of 4th ed. Classic Enemies yesterday because I was curious how many characters "bought down" their figured characteristics. I don't think there were any. Sure, a handful of characters bought down INT, EGO, or COM, but none of the figured characteristics. And of my own characters that I made from 1983 to 2003, I only have two that bought down their END.

 

I'm sure that during 6E's development, someone did a far more thorough survey of all the previously published characters to see how often figured characteristics were bought down. What percentage did so, and which figured characteristics were the most commonly bought down?

 

Because based on Classic Enemies, I can't extract a rationalization for decoupling figured from primary characteristics in 6th ed. Or is it only in "heroic" level games that it becomes a more common practice? If so, why couldn't decoupling simply have been house-ruled? Or presented as a campaign option rather than a core system change?

 

I don't mean to dig up an old argument, but the subject of why one might use an older edition, and what system differences might impact the ability to easily use material made for a different edition naturally led me to wonder about this one system change in particular.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm starting to wonder to what degree the edition a particular gamer started with, or started getting seriously into Hero with, influences what they see as the "best" version of the rule set, or at least its best presentation. In the comments here I notice such a correlation -- not universal, but frequent.

[Steve]

Eh, I might be the minority then. I started back in the 1980s with the blue box set, and I've updated my games with each edition over the years.