Use of the Hero System's Older Editions

[zslane]

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.

I would expect a fairly high correlation. It is common in many things associated with mass entertainment (different Dr. Whos, different Capt. Kirks, different James Bonds, etc.).

 

I started with 2nd ed., and I was a devoted fan of the system by 1983. But the 4th ed. simply blew my mind when it came out, and I think the impact it had on me has shaped my view of everything that has followed. Even though 4E needed tweaks and errata, I don't feel that any of the subsequent editions are worthy of wholesale adoption. And the general approach to presenting the system that Steve Long took is one I am simply not a fan of.

 

I am not ashamed to wear my 4th ed. adoration on my sleeve.

[Hyper-Man]

I got my start with 2nd edition as well.  This was also the longest running supers game I ever participated (2 plus years).  I loved 4e when it came out but never played supers with that particular rule set. Just one heroic homebrew conversion of Stalking the Night/Fringeworthy.  When 5e came out I got energized to start building characters and ultimately joined this forum to ask a how to question.  I've played in 3 different 5e games over the years, all short lived (champions, fantasy hero and dark champions/animated series).  I get as much if not more enjoyment out of the process of tinkering with builds as I would playing a game with relative strangers.  And I'm still too stubborn to do play by post or videochat (too much like work).

 

HM

[ghost-angel]

I started with 4E, but not with Supers; which shaped a lot of how I view the system. To this day Superhero is the genre I pick last when asked about what kind of games I like. (I still play, obviously, because a good gaming group trumps any dislike I have for genre or rules...)

 

I really liked 5th Edition, and despite any noises made here, I also really like 6E - I think the flexibility the base 6E offers is amazing, but I also think the rule books got way to thick, far too verbose. By the end of the DOJ era they were producing less than 10 books a year, I think the low point was 6. I don't have any special look behind the doors really, but I think things could have gone better with smaller splat books more frequently instead of the mega monsters... the 6E HSB should have been 2-3 books, not one over sized tome. The Grimoire could have been a bunch of splat books that really zeroed in on specific styles of magic systems instead of the uber-generic tome we got.

 

So yeah - I love 6E almost wholesale, but the presentation could have been so much more user friendly.

[Surrealone]

So yeah - I love 6E almost wholesale, but the presentation could have been so much more user friendly.

And don't forget the availability of the two volume set; that could be so much more user-friendly, as well.

[zslane]

My biases are shaped by a number of factors:

 

1. I love the supers genre more than any other when it comes to RPGs (and even MMORPGs). AFAIC, the Hero System was made for supers and everything else, if it works, is simply gravy but not much of a priority with me.

 

2. I started with 2nd ed. which, in 1982, seduced me away from AD&D with ease. It was the answer to every single thing that was broken about AD&D. I loved the DIY aspect of crafting a character, and Champions was ideal because...

 

3. I am an engineer by nature, and Champions was so logical and exquisitely structured, that it really spoke to the engineer in me. I was so entranced by the system that I spent all my time making characters instead of going to classes in college.

 

4. I was already a deeply devoted member of the cult by 1989. Imagine sitting outside the meeting room at Origins '89, waiting for the previous panel to get out so the "What's Happening with Hero Games" panel could begin, when along comes Rob Bell with something curled up in his hand, hidden so noone can see. While we all patiently wait, I manage to get him to give me a peek at what he's holding, and it is the galley proof of the 4th ed. BBB wraparound cover. Ecstasy!

 

5. Origins '89 was followed by annual pilgrimages to Gencon and Origins, through which I became friendly with Steve Peterson, Ray Greer, and crew (George MacDonald was mostly out of the picture by then). Their philosophy towards the game's design aligned with my own and my faithful devotion was pretty much sealed.

 

You can imagine how the departure of the 4th ed. era of the game's designers/custodians left me feeling abandoned as well, in a way. I'm sure they felt they had left the game in good hands, but it was never really the same for me. And while I respected the work that went into Fred, the difference in design and presentation philosophy was evident to me, and I could see my enthusiasm waning. When I saw that 6E followed the same trajectory into territory I was not willing to go, I mostly ignored it. I now own the 6E core library purely out of a completist compulsion.

 

In a way, the older editions are superior to me for many reasons; some of them emotional, some of them aesthetic, and some of them philosophical. Nevertheless, I think there are aspects of the older editions, 4th in particular, that are objectively preferable depending on one's goals, for instance introducing new players to the game.

[Hyper-Man]

There is a similar thread to this one on RPGnet:

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?780971-Do-you-prefer-previous-editions-of-today-s-games

 

It's telling that the majority of HERO mentions refer to 4e as their favorite.

 

HM

[Joe Walsh]

There is a similar thread to this one on RPGnet:

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?780971-Do-you-prefer-previous-editions-of-today-s-games

 

It's telling that the majority of HERO mentions refer to 4e as their favorite.

 

I was surprised by that. I would have thought more people would have balked at 6e and stuck with 5e, but it seems like lots of folks find 4e "just right" for them.

[Surrealone]

I was surprised by that. I would have thought more people would have balked at 6e and stuck with 5e, but it seems like lots of folks find 4e "just right" for them.

You shouldn't be.  4e was sized properly for consumption and price ...

[Joe Walsh]

You shouldn't be.  4e was sized properly for consumption and price ...

 

Perhaps, but my point was that I'd thought most of the people playing 4e went on to 5e, and then the big breaking point was 6e. Granted, the posts in the aforementioned thread don't constitute a scientific poll, but if they do happen to reflect reality I wonder what they represent: That a lot of 5e users went back to 4e? That a lot more people than I realized never went to 5e at all? Something else?

[Vondy]

When we were playing 4e every member of my group (seven people) had a copy and regularly made characters. Two of them also ran games once in a while so that I could take a break. When 5e came out only myself and one other member of our group bought copies. One of the alternate game-masters stopped running, and only the two of us with books routinely made characters (and had to start leaning in to get everyone else's characters made). It wasn't a money issue. It was a density, complexity, and presentation issue. They had a very real aversion to 5e and, ultimately, washed their hands of it. This is anecdotal, of corae, but it's what happened with my group. I have heard similar stories from other gamers. I suspect a not insignificant number of 4E players stuck with 4e or went looking for entirely different systems.

[Christopher R Taylor]

It wasn't a money issue. It was a density, complexity, and presentation issue.

 

 

Which just shows you how far perception can affect people.  The game was no more complex, the rules no more difficult to build a character, they just seemed more complex because of presentation and depth of explanation.  And that was enough.

[Joe Walsh]

Which just shows you how far perception can affect people.  The game was no more complex, the rules no more difficult to build a character, they just seemed more complex because of presentation and depth of explanation.  And that was enough.

 

It seemed more complex, and therefore it might as well have been.

[Scott Anderson]

I own 4e and 5e.  I prefer 5e.  It's easier for me to use.  But the superhero sourcebook stuff from 4e, I still use that.

 

I also lean heavily on the 5e USPD and Gadgets & Gear.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I personally thought 4th was a high point for Hero in terms of the total package and presentation, but 5th was a better product in terms of rules and the actual game.  It was smoother, more complete, fixed some problems, brought new options and flexibility, and was a superior game product.  Its just not very well presented as a game, something fun and learnable.

[Hyper-Man]

So 4e was the 70's firebird with average engine and 5e is a minivan with a great engine? Does that make 6e an electric?!

 

HM

[Surrealone]

When we were playing 4e every member of my group (seven people) had a copy and regularly made characters. Two of them also ran games once in a while so that I could take a break. When 5e came out only myself and one other member of our group bought copies. One of the alternate game-masters stopped running, and only the two of us with books routinely made characters (and had to start leaning in to get everyone else's characters made). It wasn't a money issue. It was a density, complexity, and presentation issue. They had a very real aversion to 5e and, ultimately, washed their hands of it. This is anecdotal, of corae, but it's what happened with my group. I have heard similar stories from other gamers. I suspect a not insignificant number of 4E players stuck with 4e or went looking for entirely different systems.

This mirrors my experience almost precisely -- except cost was -also- a factor in whether each player bought 5e to supersede his 4e rulebook.

 

Which just shows you how far perception can affect people.  The game was no more complex, the rules no more difficult to build a character, they just seemed more complex because of presentation and depth of explanation.  And that was enough.

Perception -is- 9/10ths reality, as they say -- right?

[Ninja-Bear]

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.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from Classic Enemies for decoupling figureds. 1) Scott Bennie really just updated original characters as presented in earlier editions as close as possible as the originals. I think the only thing is maybe tweaked some martial artists strength to even numbers given how in fourth martial arts costs is no longer dependant on strength. 2) He the most fleshing out was several non combat skills that were mentioned in previous texts but did not have a skill yet in earlier editions of Champions. 3) The most important point is why would see a lot of characteristics bought down when by raw you can only buy down one? Actually iirc most secondary stats if bought up, were to make a rounded number.

 

Personally there are times where I find 1-3 ed can be a bigger pain to convert to 5 than from 4-5 to 6th.

[Ninja-Bear]

Oh and fwiw, I use the 4th ed design of characters as a template for my own characters.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think the 4e published characters(really, all editions) did not sell back Figureds because that was not how Hero presented the game. Hero did see the exploit and limited sellbacks to one Figured, but elementary math showed that Primary characteristics were vastly underpriced if they included Figured's, or Figured's were vastly overpriced, or both.

 

And elements of both were modified in 6e to move to a "get what you pay for" model.

 

There are plenty of old threads debating whether "a highly skilled normal human" should buy a superhuman DEX, or suck up the huge extra cost of duplicating those abilities through skill levels. 6e fixed a lot of that cost discrepancy so making the same character mechanically did not have vastly different costs depending on the tools used.

[Vondy]

I think the 4e published characters(really, all editions) did not sell back Figureds because that was not how Hero presented the game. Hero did see the exploit and limited sellbacks to one Figured, but elementary math showed that Primary characteristics were vastly underpriced if they included Figured's, or Figured's were vastly overpriced, or both.

 

And elements of both were modified in 6e to move to a "get what you pay for" model.

 

There are plenty of old threads debating whether "a highly skilled normal human" should buy a superhuman DEX, or suck up the huge extra cost of duplicating those abilities through skill levels. 6e fixed a lot of that cost discrepancy so making the same character mechanically did not have vastly different costs depending on the tools used.

Skill levels are not an equal buy in 6th edition. They are, in most cases, inefficient now. 20 points will buy +2 OCV and +2 DCV or +2 with All Combat, which is significantly less useful / efficient. 5e had skill levels priced correctly. The bean counters lost sight of the forest for the trees.

[ghost-angel]

Skill levels are not an equal buy in 6th edition. They are, in most cases, inefficient now. 20 points will buy +2 OCV and +2 DCV or +2 with All Combat, which is significantly less useful / efficient. 5e had skill levels priced correctly. The bean counters lost sight of the forest for the trees.

 

Skills Levels in 6E get you OCV, DCV, or Damage Classes. not just OCV/DCV.

[zslane]

There are plenty of old threads debating whether "a highly skilled normal human" should buy a superhuman DEX, or suck up the huge extra cost of duplicating those abilities through skill levels. 6e fixed a lot of that cost discrepancy so making the same character mechanically did not have vastly different costs depending on the tools used.

Why is "a highly skilled normal" the system benchmark for player character point efficiency? Does this reflect some massive shift away from supers in the post-4th ed. Hero System landscape?

[Lucius]

Why is "a highly skilled normal" the system benchmark for player character point efficiency? Does this reflect some massive shift away from supers in the post-4th ed. Hero System landscape?

No, it reflects that characters like Batman have always existed in comic books.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a highly skilled palindromedary

[Christopher R Taylor]

The high skill character is still a bit of a problem for Hero, just less so than it used to be.  Batman's List o' skills and resources pretty much requires a power pool or he's more expensive than Superman

[Tasha]

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from Classic Enemies for decoupling figureds. 1) Scott Bennie really just updated original characters as presented in earlier editions as close as possible as the originals. I think the only thing is maybe tweaked some martial artists strength to even numbers given how in fourth martial arts costs is no longer dependant on strength. 2) He the most fleshing out was several non combat skills that were mentioned in previous texts but did not have a skill yet in earlier editions of Champions. 3) The most important point is why would see a lot of characteristics bought down when by raw you can only buy down one? Actually iirc most secondary stats if bought up, were to make a rounded number.

 

Personally there are times where I find 1-3 ed can be a bigger pain to convert to 5 than from 4-5 to 6th.

 

Yep, I find that converting 4e to 6e there's no real effort required. Just mapping abilities across. Heck as long as you understand 6e and what powers were change in 6e. You can in many cases just use a 4e-5er character unchanged in 6e if you are in a hurry.

 

My old group moved from 4e to 5e seamlessly. They all appreciated how much better written the rules were. There were some annoyances (ie Instant Change, Regeneration etc), but overall the update was very positive and not rebelled against. Later when 5er shipped, we moved to that as it was the same rules as 5e just with more options available. That group imploded before we could make a decision about 6e.

 

I had a couple of PC's that were made easier to build in 6e. YMMV